Actually, people _are_ working towards that, but there has been very little progress, and hence it does not get reported often. On the other hand, general artificial intelligence even far below what a human moron can do would be extremely helpful. For example, the robotics people would be hugely interested and some other fields too.
While I sort-of agree, with management always looking for cheapest (not "cheapest possible that still gets the job done"), their replacements will likely be worse.
I expect that quite a few people knew that there were a lot of not adequately secured and Internet-visible DB installations. It was only a question of time until somebody with the criminal energy to use that came along.
Morale: If it is insecure and connected to the Internet, it will get hacked sooner or later.
Did I claim to be an expert in "not making typos"? It is however telling that you did not understand what I wrote and your skills seem to end at identifying the typo.
The whole point was that most programmers do technical work on the level of engineers while not being qualified as engineers. And that makes the results so bad.
Well, both "strong AI" and "true AI" are keywords in Wikipedia. It is defined (simplified) as the ability of a machine to perform "general intelligent action". There is no consciousness requirement, but a "generality" requirement. And that makes all the difference. Strong/true AI is AI that is not specialized for one tiny problem, but can solve general problems.
Whether actual intelligence (whether natural or artificial) is possible without consciousness is an open question and besides the point for the current discussion.
No, it does not. Actual science at this time says "we have no clue how this works". There is zero evidence either way and that makes the question open. Or have you forgotten that actual intelligence gets observed nowhere else? That alone makes a default to the physicalist explanation exceptionally non-scientific. Or maybe you think consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity? If so, that would be "magic" right there, because the whole cannot be more than the sum of its parts in physics.
The actual scientific fact at this time is that the question is completely open.
Incidentally, you are wrong about "quantum". The human brain is awash with quantum-effects. They happen all the time in the synapses, and there are about 1,000 trillion of those in a human brain backed very densely. Nobody knows what even tiny deviation in the probability distributions could do.
No it does not. Read maybe some actual scientific results? The current scientific of how this works is "we do not know". That is for brains where actual intelligence can be observed. A fruit-fly, for example, cannot be called "intelligent".
It is no surprise to me that the ones creating and operating this platform are just as incompetent as the "graduates" they produce. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity...
Aaaand fail. I did write "strong/true AI" and hence you are the one that does not understand the "AI effect". Incidentally, the AI effect proves my point, because there are perfectly good terms for what often is called (non-strong/non-true) AI these days and hence there is zero need to call it AI. Pattern recognition, statistical classification, automation, etc. all far better terms than the entirely misleading unqualified "AI".
That is pretty much bullshit. You fail at understanding programming _and_ math. Seems you are in the avant-garde of the drive to be even dumber.
Here is a hint: Transitivity is one of the defining properties of an order-relation. If you do not have it, you do not have an order-relation and some nice things that an order relation gives you do not apply. But you can, of course, have non-transitive relations, and some other nice properties may apply. There is absolutely nothing in math that enforces transitivity.
For example, even simple things like hash tables and balanced trees are beyond what most current CS graduates can implement or do understand. Forget about things a bit more complicated like a complexity analysis, or a formally specified invariant or pre- and post-conditions. If you do not understand the basics, all higher-order constructs are meaningless because you can only memorize how they behave, but you can never understand it or verify your understanding. And your understanding will at the very least be incomplete and partially wrong.
CS continues to fail (and in fact it is getting worse) at education engineers. Yet the human race knows that for technology you need engineers as soon as you are customizing things or doing new things. Until and unless this gets finally understood and becomes the norm, software and everything built around it will continue to suck badly.
Basically, it is the skill to con a human. I see great reprehensible applications in advertising, manipulation of elections and other fields of human-created evil.
And that is what this is. This is not true/strong AI, this is automation, misnamed because the AI believers cannot stand their "visions" for AI not materializing.
Hehehe, you did not understand what I was saying at all.
Asking the question "How exactly was the truck driver able to see exactly what movie the guy was watching from that angle and distance?" is beyond stupid, because that is most certainly not how this was determined because that is basically impossible and obviously so. And that is my point. You get included because "Yea, I was skeptical when it was put that way too." There is no reason to be skeptical. It is completely obvious that this is not how it was determined.
Yes, I do understand what you are saying. I stand by my assessment that it is "beyond stupid". Why don't you add some even more exotic options? Here are some for you: - Aliens distracted the driver while stealthily starting the movie - Random static electricity started the player - The Tesla people, when noticing the crash, quickly started the movie over the air so it would appear the driver was watching it - The Tesla people go to the truck driver and made him say it, by bribery, coercion or hypnosis - The whole thing is a cleverly staged marketing plot And so on...
Slashdot Mirror
You have that backwards. And, coincidentally, with the last presidential elections the US has started to do it to itself with a wire-brush...
People that run governments can be trustworthy, but the question does not even present itself for the current US "leadership".
Actually, people _are_ working towards that, but there has been very little progress, and hence it does not get reported often. On the other hand, general artificial intelligence even far below what a human moron can do would be extremely helpful. For example, the robotics people would be hugely interested and some other fields too.
Ah. In that case I apologize. Of course the truck driver could have been lying. That would have been extremely dumb, but people do dumb things.
It is Foxconn. Do you really think the question needs to be asked?
That is more like it goes. Even if many companies currently are trying to suck up to Trump, they actually have no intentions to follow-through.
Indeed.
While I sort-of agree, with management always looking for cheapest (not "cheapest possible that still gets the job done"), their replacements will likely be worse.
I expect that quite a few people knew that there were a lot of not adequately secured and Internet-visible DB installations. It was only a question of time until somebody with the criminal energy to use that came along.
Morale: If it is insecure and connected to the Internet, it will get hacked sooner or later.
Did I claim to be an expert in "not making typos"? It is however telling that you did not understand what I wrote and your skills seem to end at identifying the typo.
The whole point was that most programmers do technical work on the level of engineers while not being qualified as engineers. And that makes the results so bad.
Well, both "strong AI" and "true AI" are keywords in Wikipedia. It is defined (simplified) as the ability of a machine to perform "general intelligent action". There is no consciousness requirement, but a "generality" requirement. And that makes all the difference. Strong/true AI is AI that is not specialized for one tiny problem, but can solve general problems.
Whether actual intelligence (whether natural or artificial) is possible without consciousness is an open question and besides the point for the current discussion.
No, it does not. Actual science at this time says "we have no clue how this works". There is zero evidence either way and that makes the question open. Or have you forgotten that actual intelligence gets observed nowhere else? That alone makes a default to the physicalist explanation exceptionally non-scientific. Or maybe you think consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity? If so, that would be "magic" right there, because the whole cannot be more than the sum of its parts in physics.
The actual scientific fact at this time is that the question is completely open.
Incidentally, you are wrong about "quantum". The human brain is awash with quantum-effects. They happen all the time in the synapses, and there are about 1,000 trillion of those in a human brain backed very densely. Nobody knows what even tiny deviation in the probability distributions could do.
No it does not. Read maybe some actual scientific results? The current scientific of how this works is "we do not know". That is for brains where actual intelligence can be observed. A fruit-fly, for example, cannot be called "intelligent".
It is no surprise to me that the ones creating and operating this platform are just as incompetent as the "graduates" they produce. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity...
Well, maybe. Combine Watson with this and that may change.
These are defined terms. They are not _my_ terms. Look them up before spouting complete nonsense.
Look it up. It has a defined meaning.
An unsubstantiated claim at best. At least actual Science claims no such thing.
Aaaand fail. I did write "strong/true AI" and hence you are the one that does not understand the "AI effect". Incidentally, the AI effect proves my point, because there are perfectly good terms for what often is called (non-strong/non-true) AI these days and hence there is zero need to call it AI. Pattern recognition, statistical classification, automation, etc. all far better terms than the entirely misleading unqualified "AI".
That is pretty much bullshit. You fail at understanding programming _and_ math. Seems you are in the avant-garde of the drive to be even dumber.
Here is a hint: Transitivity is one of the defining properties of an order-relation. If you do not have it, you do not have an order-relation and some nice things that an order relation gives you do not apply. But you can, of course, have non-transitive relations, and some other nice properties may apply. There is absolutely nothing in math that enforces transitivity.
For example, even simple things like hash tables and balanced trees are beyond what most current CS graduates can implement or do understand. Forget about things a bit more complicated like a complexity analysis, or a formally specified invariant or pre- and post-conditions. If you do not understand the basics, all higher-order constructs are meaningless because you can only memorize how they behave, but you can never understand it or verify your understanding. And your understanding will at the very least be incomplete and partially wrong.
CS continues to fail (and in fact it is getting worse) at education engineers. Yet the human race knows that for technology you need engineers as soon as you are customizing things or doing new things. Until and unless this gets finally understood and becomes the norm, software and everything built around it will continue to suck badly.
Basically, it is the skill to con a human. I see great reprehensible applications in advertising, manipulation of elections and other fields of human-created evil.
And that is what this is. This is not true/strong AI, this is automation, misnamed because the AI believers cannot stand their "visions" for AI not materializing.
Hehehe, you did not understand what I was saying at all.
Asking the question "How exactly was the truck driver able to see exactly what movie the guy was watching from that angle and distance?" is beyond stupid, because that is most certainly not how this was determined because that is basically impossible and obviously so. And that is my point. You get included because "Yea, I was skeptical when it was put that way too." There is no reason to be skeptical. It is completely obvious that this is not how it was determined.
Yes, I do understand what you are saying. I stand by my assessment that it is "beyond stupid". Why don't you add some even more exotic options? Here are some for you:
- Aliens distracted the driver while stealthily starting the movie
- Random static electricity started the player
- The Tesla people, when noticing the crash, quickly started the movie over the air so it would appear the driver was watching it
- The Tesla people go to the truck driver and made him say it, by bribery, coercion or hypnosis
- The whole thing is a cleverly staged marketing plot
And so on...