You know, I think this victim narrative is a huge disservice to all women, event though some seem to temporarily profit from it. It does reinforce the picture of women as poor, helpless, incompetent creatures and that is not good.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
You are ignoring well-known observable facts. As fanatics usually do. But I can see you are not actually capable of seeing what is going on. Talking truth do fanatics does not work. My apologies for trying to do so.
It depends on the amount of complex or unexpected situations you have to be able to deal with. Anything that can basically be done with a list of instructions is pretty much fair game in the not too-distant future. That means a plumber is pretty safe unless plumbing gets very standardized. Same for, a, say, hair-dresser as many customers come for the human interaction. And same for any smart, PhD-level STEM. The 70% or so others will lose their jobs. They are currently starting in on mid-level client advisers in banks and insurances.
The thing is that insights gotten from actual intelligence do scale. We need only one Einstein. Sure, the average person is a bumbling moron and even significantly above average people usually do not have this one insight that really does it (they can recognize it though), but even one in a few million does have a huge effect.
It nicely demonstrates that looking for patterns without understanding results in bullshit. The one area where computers can compete with humans is in stupidity. And the average human is already very, very stupid.
Baseless speculation. And wrong. You see, this is something most animals, insects and even some plants can do. It does not require intelligence similar to what humans have. (Well, smart ones. The dumb majority is currently destroying the biosphere the species is critically dependent on....) It does sound nice as pseudo-profound bullshit though.
OTOH I know lots of real people who never notice the elephant in the room.
Typical pattern matching never does, unless it has specifically be trained to do so. On the other hand, members of the actually smart minority of the human race often will, even when they have never seen an elephant before.
Wasn't this obvious to anyone who has studied neural networks and deep learning? I mean I would shake my head each time someone would claim that deep learning would create functioning computer "minds".
It was and is. Especially as "deep" learning performs worse than the regular kind, but is cheaper to parametrize as its main advantage. The thing is, this whole discussion is carried by people without a clue about the actual technology. It is driven by desires and fantasies, not by facts. Ask any expert when there is no risk to their funding from their answer and you get statements about AGI like "definitely not in the next 50 years" and similar. The experts know we have absolutely nothing. It is the clueless masses that think otherwise.
Because pattern matching has consistently failed for something like half a century to even remotely emulate things humans can do when the input is not quite as expected? The burden of proof is squarely on you, AI fanatic. And you have nothing.
Oh, fMRI is not a scam. But it gives you a very coarse observation of some interfaces and that is it. And the analysis techniques used on the results cannot even model a rather simplistic 8 bit CPU (which is probably on the complexity level of a single or very low number of brain cells).
Give this at least 50 more years and we may have something preliminary but tangible. At the moment we have absolutely nothing.
No technology has really been improving at an "exponential rate". That is just techo-religious nonsense. There are some parameters that had an exponential growth for a while (with a far lower impact in usefulness), but that is it. And with regards to computers, that exponential phase was pretty much over about 10 years ago.
And that is just it. Now, the elephant in the room is obviously consciousness (which nobody has the slightest idea what it is or how it works), but AI research keeps ignoring that for obvious reasons (grants drying up, etc.).
No. Authorities that have been voted into office by easily manipulated morons or by people that want their screwed up belief enforced on anybody else are not any better. Democracy has mostly failed. The voters do just not have the quality required.
Whatever understanding humans have, they can program it into the machine.
Nope. The whole history of CS serves as proof of that. "Understanding" can in no way, form or shape be programmed and that is the current state of things.
Quite obvious so. Of course, people believing in animism today are not completely sane and are not very smart as well. Hence they will react just as the AC above when their screwed-up beliefs are challenged.
You think you can target that stuff well, against a moving target in a potentially reflector-rich environment? Also, microwaves are not laser. You get some side-emissions in all directions, no matter what you do. And, incidentally, all this has been tried and failed.
And that is the current scientific status. No, "physicalists" that claim (without any scientifically valid evidence) that humans are pure physics and hence AGI must be possible are just quasi-religious fanatics. The current scientific state is that nobody knows how humans do intelligence. There are a few possibilities, for example pure physical, non-physical in some way that still can be studied scientifically (likely by extending Physics in some yet unknown way), "magic" (i.e. it cannot be determined how it works due to fundamental limits), via some communication channel from a different universe with different laws, etc. In all of these cases, including (!) the first one, it is quite possible that implementing AGI is not something that can be done. Hence claiming that "obviously it can be done" or "we are just xx years away from it" or "it will happen soon" is just gross natural stupidity. Making predictions about the ability to implement something when it is not even understood how it works at all is religion/belief/fantasy, but in no way Science.
Of course, even if we eventually find out how intelligence works and even understand how it could theoretically be implemented in a machine, it is still quite possible that it is not feasible in practice.
Seriously, this discussion needs at least half a century more research and possibly quite a bit longer. At the moment it is like cave-men discussing the possibility of mobile phones or turning lead into gold. (Both, incidentally, feasible today, although the second one is completely impractical and will very likely remain so for a long, long time and possibly forever.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you may be a p-zombie. I know I am not.
You know, I think this victim narrative is a huge disservice to all women, event though some seem to temporarily profit from it. It does reinforce the picture of women as poor, helpless, incompetent creatures and that is not good.
Naaa, men cannot be abused and cannot be victims. That is a privilege of women.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
You are ignoring well-known observable facts. As fanatics usually do. But I can see you are not actually capable of seeing what is going on. Talking truth do fanatics does not work. My apologies for trying to do so.
It depends on the amount of complex or unexpected situations you have to be able to deal with. Anything that can basically be done with a list of instructions is pretty much fair game in the not too-distant future. That means a plumber is pretty safe unless plumbing gets very standardized. Same for, a, say, hair-dresser as many customers come for the human interaction. And same for any smart, PhD-level STEM. The 70% or so others will lose their jobs. They are currently starting in on mid-level client advisers in banks and insurances.
Except that it stopped (impact-wise) about 10 years ago...
Aliens? Build a wall! Build a wall!
The thing is that insights gotten from actual intelligence do scale. We need only one Einstein. Sure, the average person is a bumbling moron and even significantly above average people usually do not have this one insight that really does it (they can recognize it though), but even one in a few million does have a huge effect.
It nicely demonstrates that looking for patterns without understanding results in bullshit. The one area where computers can compete with humans is in stupidity. And the average human is already very, very stupid.
You know, this is one of the very real possibilities AGI (if possible at all) can fail.
Of course, "if-then" is not a loop construct at all, so you are just an uneducated morn.
Baseless speculation. And wrong. You see, this is something most animals, insects and even some plants can do. It does not require intelligence similar to what humans have. (Well, smart ones. The dumb majority is currently destroying the biosphere the species is critically dependent on....) It does sound nice as pseudo-profound bullshit though.
OTOH I know lots of real people who never notice the elephant in the room.
Typical pattern matching never does, unless it has specifically be trained to do so. On the other hand, members of the actually smart minority of the human race often will, even when they have never seen an elephant before.
Wasn't this obvious to anyone who has studied neural networks and deep learning? I mean I would shake my head each time someone would claim that deep learning would create functioning computer "minds".
It was and is. Especially as "deep" learning performs worse than the regular kind, but is cheaper to parametrize as its main advantage. The thing is, this whole discussion is carried by people without a clue about the actual technology. It is driven by desires and fantasies, not by facts. Ask any expert when there is no risk to their funding from their answer and you get statements about AGI like "definitely not in the next 50 years" and similar. The experts know we have absolutely nothing. It is the clueless masses that think otherwise.
Because pattern matching has consistently failed for something like half a century to even remotely emulate things humans can do when the input is not quite as expected? The burden of proof is squarely on you, AI fanatic. And you have nothing.
Oh, fMRI is not a scam. But it gives you a very coarse observation of some interfaces and that is it. And the analysis techniques used on the results cannot even model a rather simplistic 8 bit CPU (which is probably on the complexity level of a single or very low number of brain cells).
Give this at least 50 more years and we may have something preliminary but tangible. At the moment we have absolutely nothing.
No technology has really been improving at an "exponential rate". That is just techo-religious nonsense. There are some parameters that had an exponential growth for a while (with a far lower impact in usefulness), but that is it. And with regards to computers, that exponential phase was pretty much over about 10 years ago.
And that is just it. Now, the elephant in the room is obviously consciousness (which nobody has the slightest idea what it is or how it works), but AI research keeps ignoring that for obvious reasons (grants drying up, etc.).
No. Authorities that have been voted into office by easily manipulated morons or by people that want their screwed up belief enforced on anybody else are not any better. Democracy has mostly failed. The voters do just not have the quality required.
You cannot give the "robot" the full experience without giving it consciousness. Nobody today even knows what that is.
Whatever understanding humans have, they can program it into the machine.
Nope. The whole history of CS serves as proof of that. "Understanding" can in no way, form or shape be programmed and that is the current state of things.
Quite obvious so. Of course, people believing in animism today are not completely sane and are not very smart as well. Hence they will react just as the AC above when their screwed-up beliefs are challenged.
You think you can target that stuff well, against a moving target in a potentially reflector-rich environment? Also, microwaves are not laser. You get some side-emissions in all directions, no matter what you do. And, incidentally, all this has been tried and failed.
They were released without charge. That means there is no evidence against them. Seriously.
And that is the current scientific status. No, "physicalists" that claim (without any scientifically valid evidence) that humans are pure physics and hence AGI must be possible are just quasi-religious fanatics. The current scientific state is that nobody knows how humans do intelligence. There are a few possibilities, for example pure physical, non-physical in some way that still can be studied scientifically (likely by extending Physics in some yet unknown way), "magic" (i.e. it cannot be determined how it works due to fundamental limits), via some communication channel from a different universe with different laws, etc. In all of these cases, including (!) the first one, it is quite possible that implementing AGI is not something that can be done. Hence claiming that "obviously it can be done" or "we are just xx years away from it" or "it will happen soon" is just gross natural stupidity. Making predictions about the ability to implement something when it is not even understood how it works at all is religion/belief/fantasy, but in no way Science.
Of course, even if we eventually find out how intelligence works and even understand how it could theoretically be implemented in a machine, it is still quite possible that it is not feasible in practice.
Seriously, this discussion needs at least half a century more research and possibly quite a bit longer. At the moment it is like cave-men discussing the possibility of mobile phones or turning lead into gold. (Both, incidentally, feasible today, although the second one is completely impractical and will very likely remain so for a long, long time and possibly forever.)