Every year we keep stupidly claiming that AI is just around the corner. Every year we are disappointed.
The truth is we have tricked ourselves. The rapid pace of Moore's law (computing power keeps doubling) has created incredible simulations. But paintings and statues do NOT spontaneously come alive, no matter how accurately they simulate a person. Neither do computer chips.
Indeed. But most people fall for cargo-cult, i.e. they cannot distinguish things that look similar on the outside. Apparently, actually understanding how something works requires advanced human intelligence, and it seems only something like 10% of the population has that. Hence the stupid claims.
There is a fundamental difference between real AI and what computer chips can do. The ability of computer chips to parse written, audio, and visual information is amazing, and keeps growing but it is NOT real AI and will never be.
While I sort-of agree at this time, there is a small, residual change that the physicalists are right and that humans are only advanced automatons. But it does indeed not look like it at all. A lot of research has not produced any credible theory how general intelligence (true/strong AI) could be created and it clearly is not a question of computing power. For example, the only thing we have that approaches strong AI in still a very limited field is automated theorem proving. But this one gets bogged down in complexity so early, that a smart human being can do things that a computer the size of the whole universe cannot do.
And there is the elephant in the room, constantly ignored by Neuro-"science": Consciousness. Observable only together with intelligence, and nobody has any idea what it is or how it works. In fact, current Physics does not allow it, as there is no mechanism for it. Saying it is an "emergent property of complexity" is just bullshit and akin to claiming it is "magic". Now, is two things are getting observed only together, a sound assumption is that they are facet of the same thing. Yet that also gets ignored by those that predict strong AI "anytime soon".
Computers will shortly be able to accept input via camera and microphone as accurately as they get it from a keyboard or mouse. That is not real AI. Nor is the amazingly complex search functions and databases we have created.
They are useful, and worth investing in, but more money has been wasted on them than is appropriate.
The term usually used these days is "weak AI". Weak AI was historically called "automation" and it is the "AI" without intelligence.
Being American does not automatically mean you win, it requires far more than that.
I think the US population does not have what it takes to understand that. They have been told for too long that they are massively ahead of anybody else, even in things were they are already massively behind. Now they stick to that in order to feel good and think their way is the only good one (i.e. no potential for learning from others).
Of course, that is how empires fall: Believing themselves to be ahead instead of actually being ahead.
An "ethical hacker" will only break in if given permission, either directly or via a bug-bounty program. Anybody hacking without a mandate is either grey-hat (if they do inform the target and do not try to extort them) or outright black-hat. That companies do not react friendly to people hacking them _without_ a mandate is not a surprise, as that happens to be a criminal act.
Funny. Our customers (whose beacons we have saved a few times) think differently.
Ain't nothing like an unsubstantiated appeal to authority in an attempt to save a very weak argument demonstrating what little knowledge you had on the topic.
You mistake my purpose. I am not trying to convince you, your opinion is utterly worthless to me as you demonstrated that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
What is more likely is that other people will figure out how Google did it (especially since Google is going to release a paper saying how they did it), and soon make engines that are better than AlphaGo.
I expect that will happen. And when it happens we may see machines that can beat even well-prepared human players.
when the carefully crafted illusion of "intelligence" (a blatant lie) still holds.
It's just a calculating machine. It is weak AI. I used to tell people that it was not AI at all, but they got upset and argued, so now I just say it's not strong AI. No one can argue with that. It's not general intelligence.
Indeed. "weak AI" is the AI with no "intelligence" in it. Personally, I like to call it "automation". But you are right, many people do get upset when faced with the reality of things, not only in this question.
Weak AI is still very useful, especially as it is the only AI we have and some things that we thought would require intelligence turn out to actually do not. That makes them accessible to weak AI.
Intelligence according to a dictionary definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Surely the machine is doing that, and so are Chess computers.
Actually, it is not. This approach does not work with "knowledge" or "skill". It works in an automated way which involves neither. It could be printed in a book and executed purely mechanically. Or would you claim a book can be "intelligent"?
Indeed. Rowhammer was silent data changes that could be used for attacks. This is very obvious data corruption, and only if the design of the SSD is pretty bad. The whole comparison is pretty stupid.
It does not really matter. Something this critical done right is done in two geographically separate redundant data-centers with independent power sources (different power stations and power-lines) and enough independent local power to survive long enough for anything except a major catastrophe being fixed by the power people. I have seen several instances of this being done. What happened here seems to have been a minor incident that got major because of lack of redundancy and preparedness. A major incident would probably kill them in that state.
Somebody in BA management fucked up pretty badly and as they likely will not be held accountable, they will continue to do so.
Ever heard of things like "due diligence" and "due care"? Not doing them while being in charge _is_ a crime. People have been sent to prison for it.
Messing up when your job is to make sure there is no messing up is a crime, unless you did everything reasonably possible and then were hit by really bad luck. That is obviously not the case here.
The trick is to show up with a fire extinguisher and a replacement server just before the server halt and catches fire.
If everyone did preventative maintenance and nothing catches on fire, management would start laying off techs.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that. A friend of mine had his company lay off almost all system administrators because the IT worked fine ("So what do we need them for?"). Of course, the company went bankrupt as a result of that about 2 years later. The amount of stupidity displayed in these actions is really staggering.
I think your network ops manager might suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
Alternatively, he might just be the guilty party here and is trying to do his best to prevent anybody from noticing. I have seen that one in action before.
For Chess, you are right. But Go is not anywhere near that point. Incidentally, machines playing Chess are not "intelligent" by any reasonable definition of that word, and the same is true for machines playing Go. All they do is mindlessly executing a planning algorithm. Even the "learning" is anything but, as it is merely adjustment of statistical parameters. Most problems that require intelligence to solve are not accessible to these techniques. What we are instead finding out is that neither playing Chess nor playing Go actually _requires_ intelligence and that automated solutions can scale way beyond what a player using intelligence can scale to. We may find that out about a few other things as well.
Very true on all points. I do however know of one pretty large organization (> 50K employees), that has scrapped all plans to move to Win10, due to both security concerns (against MS modeled as attacker) and the constant UI changes. As soon as Win7 enterprise becomes non-viable, they will move everybody to web-terminals (that will most assuredly not run an MS OS). Since many corporate application landscapes these days are web-based anyways, they cannot be the only ones planning that.
As this process is slow, it may take until 2018 to happen. But they are definitely working on it, and I think this time around they will not take any crap from MS. And what MS is currently doing is already illegal, so the first thing we see may be that MS is hit with a massive fine and threatened with more and a potential prohibition on sales of their defective product.
The EU is slow, but something is brewing. MS already had to make changes for the Swiss Data Privacy Commissioner and, since that guy is certainly talking to his EU counterparts, I am pretty sure that one was a test-balloon. Both the French and the Germans have already announced they are investigating. In the end, MS will have to switch all telemetry off by default, because what they are currently doing is illegal.
EU law states that absolutely every data collection must have a positive agreement by an informed customer and if it is not fundamentally necessary to run an application, it must be off by default. And if they transfer personal data, that agreement must be on paper.
Same here. I think when Win7 goes out of support, I will just go dual-system with a KVM switch, and the only thing on the Windows machine being games. For Office (which I occasionally need), I will just go for an non-networked VM on Linux. It is truly sad that the mainstream-OS has now to be treated basically as malware.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you can get some really nice food there these days. Of course, the Brexit may roll that back... :-/
Every year we keep stupidly claiming that AI is just around the corner. Every year we are disappointed.
The truth is we have tricked ourselves. The rapid pace of Moore's law (computing power keeps doubling) has created incredible simulations. But paintings and statues do NOT spontaneously come alive, no matter how accurately they simulate a person. Neither do computer chips.
Indeed. But most people fall for cargo-cult, i.e. they cannot distinguish things that look similar on the outside. Apparently, actually understanding how something works requires advanced human intelligence, and it seems only something like 10% of the population has that. Hence the stupid claims.
There is a fundamental difference between real AI and what computer chips can do. The ability of computer chips to parse written, audio, and visual information is amazing, and keeps growing but it is NOT real AI and will never be.
While I sort-of agree at this time, there is a small, residual change that the physicalists are right and that humans are only advanced automatons. But it does indeed not look like it at all. A lot of research has not produced any credible theory how general intelligence (true/strong AI) could be created and it clearly is not a question of computing power. For example, the only thing we have that approaches strong AI in still a very limited field is automated theorem proving. But this one gets bogged down in complexity so early, that a smart human being can do things that a computer the size of the whole universe cannot do.
And there is the elephant in the room, constantly ignored by Neuro-"science": Consciousness. Observable only together with intelligence, and nobody has any idea what it is or how it works. In fact, current Physics does not allow it, as there is no mechanism for it. Saying it is an "emergent property of complexity" is just bullshit and akin to claiming it is "magic". Now, is two things are getting observed only together, a sound assumption is that they are facet of the same thing. Yet that also gets ignored by those that predict strong AI "anytime soon".
Computers will shortly be able to accept input via camera and microphone as accurately as they get it from a keyboard or mouse. That is not real AI. Nor is the amazingly complex search functions and databases we have created.
They are useful, and worth investing in, but more money has been wasted on them than is appropriate.
The term usually used these days is "weak AI". Weak AI was historically called "automation" and it is the "AI" without intelligence.
Being American does not automatically mean you win, it requires far more than that.
I think the US population does not have what it takes to understand that. They have been told for too long that they are massively ahead of anybody else, even in things were they are already massively behind. Now they stick to that in order to feel good and think their way is the only good one (i.e. no potential for learning from others).
Of course, that is how empires fall: Believing themselves to be ahead instead of actually being ahead.
An "ethical hacker" will only break in if given permission, either directly or via a bug-bounty program. Anybody hacking without a mandate is either grey-hat (if they do inform the target and do not try to extort them) or outright black-hat. That companies do not react friendly to people hacking them _without_ a mandate is not a surprise, as that happens to be a criminal act.
Well, yes. Research funding has been utterly broken for a long time now.
Funny. Our customers (whose beacons we have saved a few times) think differently.
Ain't nothing like an unsubstantiated appeal to authority in an attempt to save a very weak argument demonstrating what little knowledge you had on the topic.
You mistake my purpose. I am not trying to convince you, your opinion is utterly worthless to me as you demonstrated that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
This has been known for a few decades. That it is now for IoT does not make it any more interesting.
What is more likely is that other people will figure out how Google did it (especially since Google is going to release a paper saying how they did it), and soon make engines that are better than AlphaGo.
I expect that will happen. And when it happens we may see machines that can beat even well-prepared human players.
when the carefully crafted illusion of "intelligence" (a blatant lie) still holds.
It's just a calculating machine. It is weak AI. I used to tell people that it was not AI at all, but they got upset and argued, so now I just say it's not strong AI. No one can argue with that. It's not general intelligence.
Indeed. "weak AI" is the AI with no "intelligence" in it. Personally, I like to call it "automation". But you are right, many people do get upset when faced with the reality of things, not only in this question.
Weak AI is still very useful, especially as it is the only AI we have and some things that we thought would require intelligence turn out to actually do not. That makes them accessible to weak AI.
Intelligence according to a dictionary definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Surely the machine is doing that, and so are Chess computers.
Actually, it is not. This approach does not work with "knowledge" or "skill". It works in an automated way which involves neither. It could be printed in a book and executed purely mechanically. Or would you claim a book can be "intelligent"?
Not at all. The only thing that can be achieved here is obvious data corruption (i.e. reliably detected by the SSD). Encryption has no impact on that.
Indeed. Rowhammer was silent data changes that could be used for attacks. This is very obvious data corruption, and only if the design of the SSD is pretty bad. The whole comparison is pretty stupid.
It does not really matter. Something this critical done right is done in two geographically separate redundant data-centers with independent power sources (different power stations and power-lines) and enough independent local power to survive long enough for anything except a major catastrophe being fixed by the power people. I have seen several instances of this being done. What happened here seems to have been a minor incident that got major because of lack of redundancy and preparedness. A major incident would probably kill them in that state.
Somebody in BA management fucked up pretty badly and as they likely will not be held accountable, they will continue to do so.
Funny. You are as arrogant as you are clueless. Probably words like "geo-redundancy" are too long for you. This is not your amateur home installation.
BA is not the only incompetent ones on this planet. The root cause is not the power-problem.
Stick to the armchair and stay away from incident management please.
Funny. Our customers (whose beacons we have saved a few times) think differently. It is pretty clear who the amateur here is.
Ever heard of things like "due diligence" and "due care"? Not doing them while being in charge _is_ a crime. People have been sent to prison for it.
Messing up when your job is to make sure there is no messing up is a crime, unless you did everything reasonably possible and then were hit by really bad luck. That is obviously not the case here.
The trick is to show up with a fire extinguisher and a replacement server just before the server halt and catches fire.
If everyone did preventative maintenance and nothing catches on fire, management would start laying off techs.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that. A friend of mine had his company lay off almost all system administrators because the IT worked fine ("So what do we need them for?"). Of course, the company went bankrupt as a result of that about 2 years later. The amount of stupidity displayed in these actions is really staggering.
I think your network ops manager might suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
Alternatively, he might just be the guilty party here and is trying to do his best to prevent anybody from noticing. I have seen that one in action before.
For Chess, you are right. But Go is not anywhere near that point. Incidentally, machines playing Chess are not "intelligent" by any reasonable definition of that word, and the same is true for machines playing Go. All they do is mindlessly executing a planning algorithm. Even the "learning" is anything but, as it is merely adjustment of statistical parameters. Most problems that require intelligence to solve are not accessible to these techniques. What we are instead finding out is that neither playing Chess nor playing Go actually _requires_ intelligence and that automated solutions can scale way beyond what a player using intelligence can scale to. We may find that out about a few other things as well.
Your reaction is exactly why Google went for that stunt: Even somewhat smart people fall for it.
Very true on all points. I do however know of one pretty large organization (> 50K employees), that has scrapped all plans to move to Win10, due to both security concerns (against MS modeled as attacker) and the constant UI changes. As soon as Win7 enterprise becomes non-viable, they will move everybody to web-terminals (that will most assuredly not run an MS OS). Since many corporate application landscapes these days are web-based anyways, they cannot be the only ones planning that.
As this process is slow, it may take until 2018 to happen. But they are definitely working on it, and I think this time around they will not take any crap from MS. And what MS is currently doing is already illegal, so the first thing we see may be that MS is hit with a massive fine and threatened with more and a potential prohibition on sales of their defective product.
The EU is slow, but something is brewing. MS already had to make changes for the Swiss Data Privacy Commissioner and, since that guy is certainly talking to his EU counterparts, I am pretty sure that one was a test-balloon. Both the French and the Germans have already announced they are investigating. In the end, MS will have to switch all telemetry off by default, because what they are currently doing is illegal.
EU law states that absolutely every data collection must have a positive agreement by an informed customer and if it is not fundamentally necessary to run an application, it must be off by default. And if they transfer personal data, that agreement must be on paper.
Same here. I think when Win7 goes out of support, I will just go dual-system with a KVM switch, and the only thing on the Windows machine being games. For Office (which I occasionally need), I will just go for an non-networked VM on Linux. It is truly sad that the mainstream-OS has now to be treated basically as malware.
I think they may not be able to either.