And fail. AI available these days is _all_ of the weak AI variant (that is the AI without actual "I", i.e. a marketing lie), meaning it is dumb automation. It cannot do anything that goes beyond using statistical models. It cannot have insights. It cannot do anything it has not been programmed to. The only difference is that programming here means to give it sample data, but that is it.
But here is the thing: Writing specifications is _harder_ than just writing code and seeing whether it solves the problem. But since strong AI is at the "definitely not in the next 50 years and quite possible never" state at this time, the whole discussion is just one thing: stupid.
What we do in AI today is weak AI. Weak AI cannot code or do anything else that requires actual intelligence. It is utterly dumb automation, sometimes on a large scale.
Writing code requires strong AI. Strong AI is not available and it is unclear whether it ever will be. There is no "Eventually? Definitely!" here. None at all. Seriously, stop posting stories about "AI" until you have understood the basics. These articles drip with concentrated stupid.
And apparently you are also functionally illiterate. Because that is not what I said. What I said is that you need skills that fall into a similar difficulty class to be any good at it.
Incidentally, throwing your apparent credentials around is a meaningless gesture, first because all your claims can be fulfilled on a relatively low level of difficulty and second, they can be fulfilled badly.
Or fast becoming so. Sure, they still appeal to cave-men that like to kill wholesale and make things go "boom". In the actual conflicts to come, they will just be extremely expensive historic artifacts, nothing else. The age of "big weapons" (with small brains behind them) is coming to an end.
Well, this is type of interest is certainly required. It is _the_ distinguishing factor. In order to become really good, however, that intelligence, formal training and experience, and some special type of talent apart from intelligence, is required as well. Of course, intelligence, formal training and experience are not worth much without that type of interest. That is why the best software engineers will often have those academic credentials, but you also find many not very good software engineers that basically only have those credentials, but lack the critical rest.
I also found that those with the interest but not the rest are good at problems they can completely understand in one go, i.e. that sort of "fit into their head in one piece", but become limited when that is not the case. So do not disregard "formal" qualifications. They are not worth much on their own, but for a person that has that interest, they are a massive booster. Even smart and capable people profit immensely from standing on the shoulders of giants.
As in using coding languages and styles only used at Google? And unless you are very good at this Google will not offer you a job? I smell a whole mountain of rats.
You cannot explain things without that Math or the actual mechanisms and models. You can only make claims how some aspects work, and the target of that dumbed-down pseudo-explanation cannot verify these claims or at least check their plausibility. That opens them up to any kind of lies and manipulation. If you actually explain things to somebody successfully, then they afterwards have the understanding required to verify the claims made.
Seriously, it does not. The level most people can learn to code on (with significant effort) is maybe comparable to being able to order a beer or to say "thank you" in a foreign language. Coding is an experts-only game and it will remain that. You would not seriously advise people to "learn to do mathematical proofs", would you? Coding on any level where it is worthwhile doing is on that level and often even harder, since you need to understand the machine you are coding for.
Of course, Cook will likely know that very well and just wants to assure a steady supply of cheap, low-quality coders. The stupidity here is with those that believe such statements.
You and me both, but for many people "work" is the main source of meaning in their lives. If that goes away, there will be a major problem. This may even destroy modern civilization of no solution is found.
There will not be (at least there is zero indication at this time that strong AI could ever be implemented in a machine), but dumb automation can do maybe 95% of the stuff humans do as "work" today. The small part that requires actual intelligence will have to be done by a human for the foreseeable future, but weak AI ("automation") will still kill most jobs.
Why is it that people who feel the need to explain that A.I. will not replace people always come up with the argument that A.I. "will never be as good as human" in one or another aspect?
Because most people are fundamentally dumb (an averagely smart and educated person is already a moron compared to the complexity of the modern world) and some of the rest have an agenda. Weak AI (a.k.a. "automation", the other kind does not exist), will kill a _lot_ of jobs, because as it turns out many things humans do as work do not actually require intelligence. Sure, some humans will need to continue working, but if, say, 95% of a job can be automatized away, then 19 people will lose that job (with no replacement) and one person will keep it. Or rather 20...100 people of average skill will lose that job and one highly qualified expert will do the part that the machine cannot. And this time, there will be no new jobs for those that lost their old one.
The big deal is that most people have no clue what intelligence is and mistake dumb automation (admittedly on a very large scale here) for intelligence. Hence they are completely off when evaluating what this thing can do.
Sure, there exist a computer that, in a clearly rigged contest (the computer knew games of the player, but not the other way round), defeated a really good Go player. But that Go player has general intelligence and can do and learn a lot of other things that this computer (or any other) could never do. Even for that expert Go player, playing Go is maybe 1% of his skills, and quite possibly far less.
Indeed. An UBI is just one component. People need to feel useful. Just giving them money will not make them shut up and be quiet. The UBI is without alternatives, but it is not the actual challenge here.
Of course, robots cannot take most jobs completely, but if they take 95% of a job, you still have just one human of 20 that gets to keep that job. As to actual "wisdom", you will find that the average person has close to none, and that those that have more find it is not in high demand.
There are topics that cannot be understood without at least some scientific background. Dumbing them down is a disservice to everyone. Maybe people that do not have that scientific background should realize this is a limitation on their side and stop demanding that others simplify things for them? While the arrogance smart and educated people often display is pretty bad, what is worse is people that assume that they are capable of understanding everything, and that if they do not, then it is the fault of those explaining it. Understanding complex things takes a lot of work. Invest that or shut up.
And there you have swallowed the "Big Lie" whole. The thing is that almost no sex worker is ever "trafficked". That is just a story vomited out by the anti-sex-work propaganda. No matter how often repeated, it is simply not true. It does however fit nicely into the deranged fantasies of many religious fundamentalists. The most extreme perversion committed by the police here is that they do charge sex-workers with having trafficked themselves. They also charge drivers (usually in the employ of an escort, i.e. a subordinate) with trafficking and just plain people that have helped sex-workers in anything remotely connected to their work.
Sure, very rarely somebody is forced via threat of violence into sex work, but the thing is that usually the first or second client is the one to call the police on this, because customers of sex-workers are not complete scum.
Slashdot Mirror
And fail. AI available these days is _all_ of the weak AI variant (that is the AI without actual "I", i.e. a marketing lie), meaning it is dumb automation. It cannot do anything that goes beyond using statistical models. It cannot have insights. It cannot do anything it has not been programmed to. The only difference is that programming here means to give it sample data, but that is it.
But here is the thing: Writing specifications is _harder_ than just writing code and seeing whether it solves the problem. But since strong AI is at the "definitely not in the next 50 years and quite possible never" state at this time, the whole discussion is just one thing: stupid.
What we do in AI today is weak AI. Weak AI cannot code or do anything else that requires actual intelligence. It is utterly dumb automation, sometimes on a large scale.
Writing code requires strong AI. Strong AI is not available and it is unclear whether it ever will be. There is no "Eventually? Definitely!" here. None at all. Seriously, stop posting stories about "AI" until you have understood the basics. These articles drip with concentrated stupid.
The original finding from 2008 is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No idea why anybody thinks this is worth a talk now.
And apparently you are also functionally illiterate. Because that is not what I said. What I said is that you need skills that fall into a similar difficulty class to be any good at it.
Incidentally, throwing your apparent credentials around is a meaningless gesture, first because all your claims can be fulfilled on a relatively low level of difficulty and second, they can be fulfilled badly.
Or fast becoming so. Sure, they still appeal to cave-men that like to kill wholesale and make things go "boom". In the actual conflicts to come, they will just be extremely expensive historic artifacts, nothing else. The age of "big weapons" (with small brains behind them) is coming to an end.
Well, this is type of interest is certainly required. It is _the_ distinguishing factor. In order to become really good, however, that intelligence, formal training and experience, and some special type of talent apart from intelligence, is required as well. Of course, intelligence, formal training and experience are not worth much without that type of interest. That is why the best software engineers will often have those academic credentials, but you also find many not very good software engineers that basically only have those credentials, but lack the critical rest.
I also found that those with the interest but not the rest are good at problems they can completely understand in one go, i.e. that sort of "fit into their head in one piece", but become limited when that is not the case. So do not disregard "formal" qualifications. They are not worth much on their own, but for a person that has that interest, they are a massive booster. Even smart and capable people profit immensely from standing on the shoulders of giants.
As in using coding languages and styles only used at Google? And unless you are very good at this Google will not offer you a job? I smell a whole mountain of rats.
If you believe the news on this, then you are beyond help.
You seem to be unaware how rules can be coded. No use explaining it to you, you do not have what it takes to understand the explanation.
You cannot explain things without that Math or the actual mechanisms and models. You can only make claims how some aspects work, and the target of that dumbed-down pseudo-explanation cannot verify these claims or at least check their plausibility. That opens them up to any kind of lies and manipulation. If you actually explain things to somebody successfully, then they afterwards have the understanding required to verify the claims made.
Seriously, it does not. The level most people can learn to code on (with significant effort) is maybe comparable to being able to order a beer or to say "thank you" in a foreign language. Coding is an experts-only game and it will remain that. You would not seriously advise people to "learn to do mathematical proofs", would you? Coding on any level where it is worthwhile doing is on that level and often even harder, since you need to understand the machine you are coding for.
Of course, Cook will likely know that very well and just wants to assure a steady supply of cheap, low-quality coders. The stupidity here is with those that believe such statements.
You and me both, but for many people "work" is the main source of meaning in their lives. If that goes away, there will be a major problem. This may even destroy modern civilization of no solution is found.
There will not be (at least there is zero indication at this time that strong AI could ever be implemented in a machine), but dumb automation can do maybe 95% of the stuff humans do as "work" today. The small part that requires actual intelligence will have to be done by a human for the foreseeable future, but weak AI ("automation") will still kill most jobs.
Why is it that people who feel the need to explain that A.I. will not replace people always come up with the argument that A.I. "will never be as good as human" in one or another aspect?
Because most people are fundamentally dumb (an averagely smart and educated person is already a moron compared to the complexity of the modern world) and some of the rest have an agenda. Weak AI (a.k.a. "automation", the other kind does not exist), will kill a _lot_ of jobs, because as it turns out many things humans do as work do not actually require intelligence. Sure, some humans will need to continue working, but if, say, 95% of a job can be automatized away, then 19 people will lose that job (with no replacement) and one person will keep it. Or rather 20...100 people of average skill will lose that job and one highly qualified expert will do the part that the machine cannot. And this time, there will be no new jobs for those that lost their old one.
The actual conclusion here is that driving a car does not require intelligence. And no, none of the rules used are "soft".
The big deal is that most people have no clue what intelligence is and mistake dumb automation (admittedly on a very large scale here) for intelligence. Hence they are completely off when evaluating what this thing can do.
Sure, there exist a computer that, in a clearly rigged contest (the computer knew games of the player, but not the other way round), defeated a really good Go player. But that Go player has general intelligence and can do and learn a lot of other things that this computer (or any other) could never do. Even for that expert Go player, playing Go is maybe 1% of his skills, and quite possibly far less.
Indeed. An UBI is just one component. People need to feel useful. Just giving them money will not make them shut up and be quiet. The UBI is without alternatives, but it is not the actual challenge here.
Of course, robots cannot take most jobs completely, but if they take 95% of a job, you still have just one human of 20 that gets to keep that job. As to actual "wisdom", you will find that the average person has close to none, and that those that have more find it is not in high demand.
There are topics that cannot be understood without at least some scientific background. Dumbing them down is a disservice to everyone. Maybe people that do not have that scientific background should realize this is a limitation on their side and stop demanding that others simplify things for them? While the arrogance smart and educated people often display is pretty bad, what is worse is people that assume that they are capable of understanding everything, and that if they do not, then it is the fault of those explaining it. Understanding complex things takes a lot of work. Invest that or shut up.
True. I stand corrected.
I try to stay away from the deranged ramblings of nil-whits, so I have no knowledge of what Trump may have said on the subject.
And there you have swallowed the "Big Lie" whole. The thing is that almost no sex worker is ever "trafficked". That is just a story vomited out by the anti-sex-work propaganda. No matter how often repeated, it is simply not true. It does however fit nicely into the deranged fantasies of many religious fundamentalists. The most extreme perversion committed by the police here is that they do charge sex-workers with having trafficked themselves. They also charge drivers (usually in the employ of an escort, i.e. a subordinate) with trafficking and just plain people that have helped sex-workers in anything remotely connected to their work.
Sure, very rarely somebody is forced via threat of violence into sex work, but the thing is that usually the first or second client is the one to call the police on this, because customers of sex-workers are not complete scum.
Indeed. Truly astonishing.
You mean it would be "smart" to ignore one looming disaster because we have another looming disaster? Sounds suicidal to me.