Humans play chess as a strategy game. Computers play chess as a math problem to solve by looking ahead x turns.

"Go" on the other-hand must still be played as a strategy game by computers because looking ahead is not that helpful.

No, merely reaction time.

In other words, this is an example of good image recognition software, that's it.

Show me a game that beat a human on a strategy based game, then you have something.

they also need to put in a requirement that if you accept the prize money, then you give up the patent, allowing generic drugs.

Otherwise I foresee a case where they take the $2 billion profit, then go ahead and charge $10,000 a pill, just like cancer drugs.

Which is the real problem. I have no issue with the power company charging a reasonable fee to maintain the power grid, but I do have a problem if they attempt to use it as a "profit center" by over charging people.

is that they are trying to maintain a badly formatted pricing system.

What they they be doing is admit that there are two separate features of their industry - the maintenance/connection to the grid and the supply of power. It costs a lot of money to maintain the grid as well as to supply the charge.

What they should be doing is to charge a set amount X dollars per month to connect to the grid and in addition a per kilowatt charge - that is of course smaller than the existing one. And that charge must be reasonable - based on their actual costs to maintain the grid.

These charge changes must go to ALL their customers - both those that sell power back and those that don't.

This gets rid of their only valid objection to selling power back to the grid - the cost of maintaining the grid.

Giver her advice on lifestyle issues - picking the right spouse, dating, breaking up, marriage, childbirth, child-rearing advice, divorce, and dealing with death.

Not to mention some career advice - get fired, get promoted, work -life balance.

Probably talk about other health issues that she might inherit, and at least mention some of the major mental ones - addiction (drugs, alcohol, and gambling).

Lastly, I would talk not just about advise, but about the things you value. Talk about your own personal views, what you believe in. Let her know who you are rather than just advisign her how she should live her life.

I don't think they print while the truck is moving. They print wherever the truck is, Then they deliver it.

I bet they hope to eventually be able to print while the truck is in motion, but we don't have the tech to do that yet.

Of course, that will probably be another set of patents. :(

Robots that disobey their owner would be dramatically wrong on multiple levels.

At the same time, their owners should be legally responsible for the orders they give the robot.

So if the owner can effectively order the robot to selectively serve alcohol only to adults that are not already intoxicated, then the robots should serve alcohol.

If the robot can not make that determination, then it should not be allowed to serve alcohol.

See what you do is ask every doctor and nurse if they believe in Astrology.

Those that say "Yes" get demoted, those that say "No" get promoted.

BOOM, instant increase in efficiency.

One of the major mistakes is that technology is not universally disruptive. It's main disruption arises from unexpected forms of technology, not the ones we pay attention to. I.E. we get cellphones, not flying cars/jetpacks.

The progress tends to be in areas that were not gaining progress before,

In general the Singularity people believe the progress will entirely be in AI. Specifically, they think that our advancements in computer technology will continue to be in complexity etc. along the SAME lines it has already done. I hereby propose that AI will NOT have any major disruptive changes in the future. Instead it might be in something dramatically different. Maybe shoes, soap, or some other commonplace item - kind of like the phone underwent a dramatic and unpredicted change.

The major issues with the AI people is that they think all the progress in making computers have faster processing of mathematical equations will somehow create a thinking computer. We see it all the time in all the fiction. They confuse good at math for "have a soul".

Most importantly, while the Singularity people talk about unable to predict, they then go ahead and make a bunch of crappy predictions - mainly based on junk science that we know is wrong.

You want a realistic story of the creation of the first AI. AI gets created, learns to talk, explores the internet then writes a horrible, "emo" suicide note before it kills itself.

THAT would be far more likely than the crappy "humans uploads the entire race and stops having kids" junk that Singularity people like to fantasize about.

Almost anything you do can 'improve business'. If only because you are paying attention and trying something.

The question is do the benefits out-way the costs. To that I would say a resounding no.

Partly because people are not robots and employers have a long history of eliminating things that are not directly profitable to the company but are key to the morale and mental health of the employees. Restricting bathroom breaks to 10 minutes, etc. Or doing the opposite - forcing them to attend pointless meetings to set the agenda for next week's pointless meeting.

That is exactly the kind of things that you get when you 'track' your employees.

A better approach is to simply ask - and listen - to the employees about things they consider wasted time. They know more about it than any tracking system.

Glad to hear from an intelligent person, rather than an obsessed 'futurist' that has mistaken wishful/paranoid thinking for scientific projections.

I would have added that the concept of the 'singularity' assumes multiple 'facts' that are extremely unlikely. In part because if they were true, science would already have been much farther along. Also in part because they confabulate different definitions of words, most often 'intelligence'. When AI people are talking about intelligence they are generally not using the word in the same way that a biologist, or worse, a priest. would.

You are correct about nutmeg.

But water is not near the ratio to kill you.

On average, 6 people die from alcohol poisoning each year. Almost no one dies from drinking too much water. But that is in part due to behavior - most people that drink enough water to kill them are athletes and they often have medical personnel near them.

Your core numbers are wrong. Normal human beings do not drink 1 liter of water in a single sitting. Diabetics and other people that are expected to drink a lot tend to drink 1/2 a liter. You are expected to take in 2-3 liters over an entire day - and that number INCLUDES the water you get from eating food. Typical servings for water is 1/4 liter. 1 liter bottles are intended for multiple people/long term use. As per this web page: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015... It takes 17 water bottles to kill you, far different than the alcohol ratio.

That's simply not true.

But there are quite a few substances people think are 'harmless' that if you consume more than the normal dose you can kill yourself.

Chief on the list is salt substitute. Many people buy the 'low sodium salt substitute" Potassium Chloride to replace table salt Sodium Chloride. But it is the exact same substance used by several states to execute death penalty cases.

Nut meg is also up there, along with our friend Vitamin A

All three of those substances are typically sold to consumers in containers that, if used all at once, can kill you.