Re: AI is hard
Well... there's a whole lot of racial slurs involving apes and monkeys that still show up in the US. So yes, I can see where it's an insult. Unintentional from an AI standpoint, but... unintended consequences and all that.
12880 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Nov 2012
I think it goes back further than the web... many companies figured the risk assessment and decided to let their customers/users do their testing. It's just taken the software companies time to figure out how in-house testing affects the bottom line. The difference is that generally software won't kill or maim people compared to say a car or other piece of equipment.
My basic thought is that mobile phones, messaging apps and all that have hugely increased the value to people of being literate, even if only vaguely so
From what I've seen here in the States, the literacy level is dropping. I'm seeing more and more emails from management using "textspeak"... They even think (or so it seems) that email is like Twitter and you're only allowed 140 characters. I can't begin to total up how many times I've had to call the writer and ask for a translation and what are they trying to say. So.. good luck with raising the literacy rate to a new level.
I'd like one that I can set the info that I want... speed, engine/tire(tyre) alerts, maybe mpg for long road trips.
Oh.. and I want a selectable option for the machineguns and missile launcher to take care of distractions such as idiots and that guy with the 10,000 Watt speaker system that makes my car shake to his music from 50 yards away and hangs on my bumper even at 10mph over the limit but won't go around even if I slow down to 10 under the limit. I guess I don't want much, do I?
I don't think at this point, they had to understand the issue. IANAL either but watching this court and reading of similar suits, they get tossed since there really isn't a Constitutional question raised. If it had been raised at the start of the lawsuit, or during the appeal.. maybe. The catch is, copyrights and patents are part of Congresses duty to "regulate trade". This issue really needs to be addressed in Congress.... like that will ever happen. To many lobbyists and vested interests around.
I find this to possibly be a good thing but hope that there's some oversight. I do have a possibly related or non-related question.. What AV do cybercrims use? Seems to me that there's some room for actually stopping these guys. Like maybe the security companies use them (unknowingly to the crim) to either improve their product or to sell it.
It like the NSA here in the States... are they using the crims in some ways like beta testers or just stealing their ideas and malware?
Actually, that appears to be the plan... "as a service".. When the "supported lifetime" (6 months? 6 years?) ends, they'll roll out the new one and for only $XX per month, your PC will work. I'm seeing quite a bit of software moving into that business model and I'll be damned if I like it.
One goes to Fox, NYT, and others for this news and the comments are filled with BS about Obama did it, ISIS did it, you're polluting the air and ocean...yada..yada.. yada... Have one on me fellow commentards... Nice to see intelligent commentary that doesn't degrade into garbage.
I feel for you guys in Oz. So the national security folks have to be contacted which in itself just doesn't feel right to me. Sort of like.. 'we know you moved and now we found you again."? And approval by government... which means that someone who is probably a political appointee with no knowledge and maybe a lawyer or two will decide? Where's the guarantee of technical competence to approve?
It started in New Zealand, now it's your turn. I wonder what country will pick up on this next? The US? GB?
we know they work. We know where the pitfalls are. Yes, we should have them. However, here in the States.. say the "N" word (Nuke not the other) and people start shaking in their boots, going pale, and generally become antagonistic. Maybe the "duck and cover" generation need to die off before the fear goes away.
Right now, they are a novelty and probably for the near future. Once the killer app/use hits, they will take off. I don't think the gamers will be much of a market to recoup R&D costs. If a business use is found and companies jump on it, then the prices will drop and individuals will flock to that market.
Or, it may have to go vice versa.. the killer app/use that everyone wants or thinks they need and then business will adopt it.
I think the biggest market right now would be training, but it will take a lot of reasons for companies to spend the money for it since there's little profit motive for them. Governments... military, air traffic control would definitely benefit from it.
Simply kitting schools out with a basic GearVR setup could achieve all of these things without having to bus anyone anywhere.
While that's an excellent idea, think about how well tech overall is faring in schools. Broken and stolen equipment. Under utilized. And once it's in, upkeep and maintenance (including patches) are forgot about. Oh.. and it's expensive. A lot of taxpayers would balk at the price of acquisition and upkeep.
I do agree that there's a lot of potential as a teaching tool. And if the costs of courseware, hardware, and operating costs drop, it will be adopted.
The answer is "it depends" I think. A real slow 'bump' probably wouldn't do much. Something harder might damage the hull integrity and result in air loss or serious damage that irreversible. (for some value of "harder:) As for knocking it out of orbit.. I have no idea what it would take.
I find it amazing that in other high profile attacks (the ones that make the media), they can establish rather quickly ("quickly" for some value of governmentspeak) but when the government's house is broken into, they don't know. Is the government IT that bad? No logs? No intruder protection? Basically a wide open front door with no one giving a crap? This seems like bad policy, not politics, but incompetence of those in charge of IT (and not the individual department heads of say.. OPM). But then, we've seen a lot of bad policy made whereas in this case, any policy would have been better than none.
But, if they won't discuss, either in general terms or specific instances, we have no way of knowing. In the cases presented in the article, there might be valid reasons for the takedown request and not necessarily the perps. It's a pity that they are not a bit more open on this. Currently, it looks like just more game playing from Google.