I've never understood why birds run into mirrors/reflective objects. Even if they don't understand a reflection, I would think they'd still try to not run into the other bird that is flying at them.
It's possibly a faster version of when we walk up to somebody and both happen to change direction the same way at the same time, and both keep making counter corrections until there is room to pass. Being birds are in 3D space, random corrections probably work the vast majority of the time against other birds, and the few times it fails, other birds are softer than windows, resulting in minor bruises. Not so with glass.
Being "technically" correct and "common sense" correct may be different things. Most people will never visit outer space and thus their usual perspective is from a human on the ground. One can earn a perfectly good living believing the Earth is flat. (Insert your fav Kyrie Irving joke here.)
Nor will they be shrunk to cell size to observe "lumpy" cuts. A bot won't necessarily have to intellectually understand scale to do most "common sense" tasks. You don't need a science education to wash dishes; however you do need experience using and washing common human artifacts. Otherwise, you'll accidentally wash the cat.
Any company trying to accomplish this impossible feat on a budget
Who says they are doing this on a budget? Google has deep R&D pockets.
I can see it gradually expanding: limit it to carefully mapped roads at first, and gradually expand the driving network. The trucking industry is salivating over this because drivers are a big cost of theirs.
New industries often follow this pattern. Railroads, oil, and steel did the same in the 1800's. While they did expand and grow their industries, eventually they played the usual tricks oligopolies/monopolies play to keep out competition. When competition was killed off, they jacked up prices, forced bundling (buy X to get Y), and slacked on service. And we had similar with AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft.
When and how to break them up or regulate them more is politically sticky. Libertarians have suggested they end up falling on their own faces after a while, often due to complacency, such that gov't intervention is not necessary. However, it can be many decades before they finally trip, meaning consumers are stuck with lack of competition and choice for decades.
Some also argue that if we don't let them grow, then the Chinese gov't will prop up and help create similar conglomerates outside the control of democracies.
If an elephant suddenly appeared in my room I'd lose my shit to.
Indeed, Republicans randomly showing up in my living-room makes me freak out too:-)
Seriously, though, AI will have to be broken into more digestible and manageable chunks to be practical: a kind of hybrid between expert systems and neural nets. Letting neural nets do the entirety of processing is probably unrealistic for non-trivial tasks. AI needs dissect-able modularity to both split AI workers into coherent tasks, and to be able to "explain" to the end users (or juries) why the system made the decision it did.
For example, a preliminary pass may try to identify individual objects in a scene, perhaps ignoring context at first. If say 70% look like house-hold objects and 30% look like jungle objects, then the system can try processing it further as either type (house-room versus jungle) to see which one is the most viable*. It's sort of an automated version of Occam's Razor.
In game processing systems, such as automated chess, there are various back-tracking algorithms for exploring the possibilities (AKA "game tree candidates"). One can set various thresholds on how deep (long) to look at one possible game branch before giving up to look at another. It may do a summary (shallow) pass, and then explore the best candidates further.
My sig (Table-ized A.I.) gives other similar examples using facial recognition.
* In practice, individual items may have a "certainty grade list" such as: "Object X is a Couch: A-, Tiger: C+ Croissant sandwich: D". One can add up the category scores from all objects in the scene and then explore the top 2 or 3 categories further. If the summary conclusion is the scene is a room, then the rest of the objects can be interpreted in that context (assuming they have a viable "room" match in their certainty grade list.) In the elephant example, it can be labelled as either an anomaly, or maybe reinterpreted as a giant stuffed animal, per expert-system rules. (Hey, I want one of those.)
There is no practical alternative. But no, most people don't care, either.
They do care, but most seem to accept it as a fact of life that desktop computers will suck one way or another. As people rely more on phones and tablets, they too are becoming a source of headaches. "Why the [bleep] can't I transfer my photos from this mobile to gizmo to this other mobile gizmo?"
I'm sure there are 3rd parties that have individual plans, but most consumers use word of mouth to judge such. It has to build up to a critical mass to be viable. The "network effect" matters in getting acceptance.
Our "machines" are becoming more software and less hardware over time because making complex or dynamic behavior in software is usually easier than via hardware. This also implies that more "hardware" problems will actually be software problems. They are essentially becoming robots controlled by microprocessors (which may or may not be controlled in part by a human user).
Getting things fixed is also becoming more like dealing with the likes of Microsoft than a local craft-person. Smaller shops and 3rd parties often have a difficult time getting the specifications and/or diagnostic software needed to troubleshoot and fix machines, as the manufacturers fight for control over and revenues from repairs.
One repair guy told me, "Frankly, we just can't afford the vendor's software to diagnose that gizmo. We don't get enough repair requests for it to justify the monthly licensing fee." (paraphrased) Translation: I have to go directly to the vendor and pay their fat fee to get it fixed.
If anyone was really outraged, they would get something else.
Most are annoyed by Windows antics, not "outraged". Compatibility and familiarity trumps the alternatives so far.
Macs are more expensive and don't run a lot of software titles, Google also pulls marketing shenanigans, Linux is unfamiliar and is hard to get help for unless you want to put up with impatient volunteers lacking people skills (I'm just the messenger).
Until the alternatives improve, people will put up with a degree of MS spamware and forced upgrades. In the land of C-, you can stay D+ for a long time.
during a job interview...my strongest point is my laziness...always looking for ways to do things easier, faster, more consistently and with less work by me...
I once said something similar for an interview and did not get the job, and the tone of voice told me that angle didn't go over very well.
This was after the dot-com crash in CA and IT jobs were scarce because CA was flooded with dot-com "refugees". (I considered moving out of state, but family obligations made that hard.)
At first I was very conventional at interviews. When it didn't work, I decided to experiment, and give these kinds of answers. I also tried, "I don't have the top people skills, so am willing to accept a lower salary to compensate." I cannot say the unconventional way worked either. I just had to wait for the local economy to improve.
A few times I even told the interviewer off for asking really stupid or insulting questions. Bad bad form, but great catharsis. Some people are pure jerks.
If you have time and calories to spare, you don't do nothing. You develop arts, science, technology...
Evolution-wise that probably was a rare enough situation so as to be considered an "edge case". It's letting the gray-ware go rogue.
The upper-middle-class ancient Greeks who owned slaves were probably the first "mass case" of such. Most of those people probably just flirted around, with only a few percent doing art, philosophy, or math.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked at/for a lot co's, and jerkativity is NOT limited to just banking.
Sure, if you go out of your way or dig around, you may get such. But the fact you have to go out of your way emphasizes my point.
It's possibly a faster version of when we walk up to somebody and both happen to change direction the same way at the same time, and both keep making counter corrections until there is room to pass. Being birds are in 3D space, random corrections probably work the vast majority of the time against other birds, and the few times it fails, other birds are softer than windows, resulting in minor bruises. Not so with glass.
Being "technically" correct and "common sense" correct may be different things. Most people will never visit outer space and thus their usual perspective is from a human on the ground. One can earn a perfectly good living believing the Earth is flat. (Insert your fav Kyrie Irving joke here.)
Nor will they be shrunk to cell size to observe "lumpy" cuts. A bot won't necessarily have to intellectually understand scale to do most "common sense" tasks. You don't need a science education to wash dishes; however you do need experience using and washing common human artifacts. Otherwise, you'll accidentally wash the cat.
I have an Einsteinien gut.
Who says they are doing this on a budget? Google has deep R&D pockets.
I can see it gradually expanding: limit it to carefully mapped roads at first, and gradually expand the driving network. The trucking industry is salivating over this because drivers are a big cost of theirs.
New industries often follow this pattern. Railroads, oil, and steel did the same in the 1800's. While they did expand and grow their industries, eventually they played the usual tricks oligopolies/monopolies play to keep out competition. When competition was killed off, they jacked up prices, forced bundling (buy X to get Y), and slacked on service. And we had similar with AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft.
When and how to break them up or regulate them more is politically sticky. Libertarians have suggested they end up falling on their own faces after a while, often due to complacency, such that gov't intervention is not necessary. However, it can be many decades before they finally trip, meaning consumers are stuck with lack of competition and choice for decades.
Some also argue that if we don't let them grow, then the Chinese gov't will prop up and help create similar conglomerates outside the control of democracies.
Indeed, Republicans randomly showing up in my living-room makes me freak out too :-)
Seriously, though, AI will have to be broken into more digestible and manageable chunks to be practical: a kind of hybrid between expert systems and neural nets. Letting neural nets do the entirety of processing is probably unrealistic for non-trivial tasks. AI needs dissect-able modularity to both split AI workers into coherent tasks, and to be able to "explain" to the end users (or juries) why the system made the decision it did.
For example, a preliminary pass may try to identify individual objects in a scene, perhaps ignoring context at first. If say 70% look like house-hold objects and 30% look like jungle objects, then the system can try processing it further as either type (house-room versus jungle) to see which one is the most viable*. It's sort of an automated version of Occam's Razor.
In game processing systems, such as automated chess, there are various back-tracking algorithms for exploring the possibilities (AKA "game tree candidates"). One can set various thresholds on how deep (long) to look at one possible game branch before giving up to look at another. It may do a summary (shallow) pass, and then explore the best candidates further.
My sig (Table-ized A.I.) gives other similar examples using facial recognition.
* In practice, individual items may have a "certainty grade list" such as: "Object X is a Couch: A-, Tiger: C+ Croissant sandwich: D". One can add up the category scores from all objects in the scene and then explore the top 2 or 3 categories further. If the summary conclusion is the scene is a room, then the rest of the objects can be interpreted in that context (assuming they have a viable "room" match in their certainty grade list.) In the elephant example, it can be labelled as either an anomaly, or maybe reinterpreted as a giant stuffed animal, per expert-system rules. (Hey, I want one of those.)
That's what Porn Support also told me.
Correction: "...from this mobile gizmo to this other mobile gizmo"
"Plastics!"
-The Graduate
They do care, but most seem to accept it as a fact of life that desktop computers will suck one way or another. As people rely more on phones and tablets, they too are becoming a source of headaches. "Why the [bleep] can't I transfer my photos from this mobile to gizmo to this other mobile gizmo?"
Ubuntu doesn't appear to even offer individual support. You have buy at least 50 PC's.
I'm sure there are 3rd parties that have individual plans, but most consumers use word of mouth to judge such. It has to build up to a critical mass to be viable. The "network effect" matters in getting acceptance.
Our "machines" are becoming more software and less hardware over time because making complex or dynamic behavior in software is usually easier than via hardware. This also implies that more "hardware" problems will actually be software problems. They are essentially becoming robots controlled by microprocessors (which may or may not be controlled in part by a human user).
Getting things fixed is also becoming more like dealing with the likes of Microsoft than a local craft-person. Smaller shops and 3rd parties often have a difficult time getting the specifications and/or diagnostic software needed to troubleshoot and fix machines, as the manufacturers fight for control over and revenues from repairs.
One repair guy told me, "Frankly, we just can't afford the vendor's software to diagnose that gizmo. We don't get enough repair requests for it to justify the monthly licensing fee." (paraphrased) Translation: I have to go directly to the vendor and pay their fat fee to get it fixed.
Most are annoyed by Windows antics, not "outraged". Compatibility and familiarity trumps the alternatives so far.
Macs are more expensive and don't run a lot of software titles, Google also pulls marketing shenanigans, Linux is unfamiliar and is hard to get help for unless you want to put up with impatient volunteers lacking people skills (I'm just the messenger).
Until the alternatives improve, people will put up with a degree of MS spamware and forced upgrades. In the land of C-, you can stay D+ for a long time.
Yes, from the few percent who produced it. And mostly after their time.
It's not necessarily mutually exclusive. During an econ slump, I almost took an IT job at a Web porn outfit.
Your criticism of my reply is vague.
It was regarding the claim: "If you have time and calories to spare, you don't do nothing. You develop arts, science, technology..."
I demonstrated that's usually not the case. The fact that a few percent do it under certain circumstances is a fluke. Most "flirt around".
Welcome to Slashdot, Milton
Paper hacking
Make Trump pay for it, as punishment for denying climate change.
I once said something similar for an interview and did not get the job, and the tone of voice told me that angle didn't go over very well.
This was after the dot-com crash in CA and IT jobs were scarce because CA was flooded with dot-com "refugees". (I considered moving out of state, but family obligations made that hard.)
At first I was very conventional at interviews. When it didn't work, I decided to experiment, and give these kinds of answers. I also tried, "I don't have the top people skills, so am willing to accept a lower salary to compensate." I cannot say the unconventional way worked either. I just had to wait for the local economy to improve.
A few times I even told the interviewer off for asking really stupid or insulting questions. Bad bad form, but great catharsis. Some people are pure jerks.
Evolution-wise that probably was a rare enough situation so as to be considered an "edge case". It's letting the gray-ware go rogue.
The upper-middle-class ancient Greeks who owned slaves were probably the first "mass case" of such. Most of those people probably just flirted around, with only a few percent doing art, philosophy, or math.
"Octopie" sounds delicious!
Jokes about Japanese tentacle pr0n in 3...2...1...
Anyhow, you gotta be high to ponder what it's like to make octopi high.