Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bill Gates is a benevolent philanthropist (Score 5, Insightful) 149

by JustNiz (#49553053) Attached to: Think Tanks: How a Bill [Gates Agenda] Becomes a Law

>> He only wants the best for the next generation of Americans.

Ahh so thats why he's trying to directly engineer mass unemployment of home-grown US engineers, and replace them with a dependency on a 3rd world country where the academic system is a complete sham that is based on widespread cheating and the sale of degrees as standard practice?

Comment: Re:Restarted several times per week isn't that bad (Score 1) 458

by JustNiz (#49553027) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Are the Most Stable Smartphones These Days?

Your paranoia of rebooting your phone several times a day is an illness. Your advocation that this is necessary is ridiculous. Your assertion that when we buy expensive products we should all adopt sheep-like acceptance of low-quality and functional issues without even complaining is just downright insulting and retarded.

Comment: Re:Google is your friend (Score 1) 196

by JustNiz (#49532565) Attached to: Concerns of an Artificial Intelligence Pioneer

>> you have no idea how machine learning actually works

I acutally do, since I did AI as a final-year elective in my CS degree and machine learning was a significant part of it, Perhaps what you actually mean is that your view of what it is doesn't agree with mine. So instead of just continually being a dick and insulting my knowledge, why don't you tone it down a bit and justify your own points more specifically? actually never mind I have nothing to prove here or learn from you.

Comment: Re:ok but (Score 1) 400

>> Pretty much any lawyer can choose to run for a post like County Attorney

Exactly. Do you REALLY think the type of people that become lawyers in the first place are also those that are naturally the least scheming and devious and most altruistic? I for one don't, yet as you say, those are the ones most well-placed to run.

Comment: Re:Google is your friend (Score 1) 196

by JustNiz (#49529847) Attached to: Concerns of an Artificial Intelligence Pioneer

>> by most accepted definitions of intelligence, there are no algorithms that exhibit signs of actually having it.

thats a very sweeping statement. Its also one that seems patently untrue given the bar for general intelligence seems actually pretty low. Look at Wikipedia's more general definition of intelligence for example:
the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so.

It says nothing about interpreting or fundamentally understanding knowledge, merely perceiving and or retaining it. Imagine a chess program that works by storing a chess board and gets the next moev by building a simple game tree of all legal moves from the current position, then scores each branch according to some system of evaluation using weightings. As long as it also adjusts/refines its weightings over time based on the outcome of each completed game, it seems that would clearly qualify as "intelligent" according to the above definition.

Comment: Really? (Score 1) 2

by JustNiz (#49529203) Attached to: Swallow Your Password

Why do people that come up with these ideas not see the obvious serious issues such as the abuse by governments and corps that this tech would immediately facilitate would be immense and far outweigh any perceived benefits to the user.

It doesn't take much to figure out the NSA/CIA/FBI/police would abuse the hell out of this including pushing to make digitally tagged individuals become the law or at least our lives practically unworkable for those opting out of it.

Comment: Re:Google is your friend (Score 1) 196

by JustNiz (#49524499) Attached to: Concerns of an Artificial Intelligence Pioneer

>> There's nothing wrong with being excited about AI developments. It's just that historically, people like you who go around calling things AI that aren't

Well there is no and probably can be no solid definition of AI, at least partly because it depends on a consistent deifintion of what intelligience itself is. Some people believe that nothing other than humans even have the capability to be intelligent because it requires a soul or whatever, while, some people think a cellphone is at least partially intelligent, hence the name smartphone.

Thats why when you asked
>> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks?
it appeared to me to be a very ignorant question and was really my poiint in showing you lots of diverse links to differnet forms of what different smart people consider intelligence to be.

Regardless of what you clearly thing about neural nets, I still belive they demonstrate at least some level of basic intelligence, as does most any algorithm that evaluates and adapts and so improves its own behaviour in order to reach some goal without needing ongoing input at each iteration (i.e. programming) by a human. To me that algorithm is demostrating basic intelligence even though a human programmed it to be that way.

It seems to me that until someone can define "true" intellgience (whatever that means) there is no point in trying to diferentiate between it and apparent intelligence, since I think both are no more than an emergent side-effect of a self-improving (i.e. learning) system that has some objective. Much like how a bunch of robots all programmed with a few very simple rules can exhibit very complex emergent behaviour when operating/interacting/viewed as a swarm.

Comment: Google is your friend (Score 1) 196

by JustNiz (#49523435) Attached to: Concerns of an Artificial Intelligence Pioneer

>> Where is the bot that can pass a Turing test reliably?
Here's just one of the ones that have passed the turing test.

>> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks?
>> Where is the machine that can learn complex tasks?
>> where is there a machine that uses something other than a human designed tree search to do things?
Many software applications based on neural networks and other self-evolving/learning AI alogirthms are already in everyday use not only learning complex tasks but also themselves coming up with new and better solutions to them.

>> I hear this crap about machine intelligence thrown out without any significant exemplars of said intelligence.
>> Show me something smarter than Eliza.
Uh how about you do your own looking? just try Googling stuff? Its not like this stuff isn't easily findable..

Comment: Re:ok but (Score 1) 400

>> When a senator or house member sponsors and pushes through a bill that is found to be unconstitutional they lose their seat, right then, right there. Those that actually voted for the bill are fined a nice lump sum, 10K at least. If it is found that they sponsored or voted for a bill for personal gain, prison time.

Nice. When is the last time this actually happened? I'm genuinely asking, since it seems to me there's been a *lot* of bills/laws passed that are actually unconstituional, and apparently resulted in zero reprocussions.

Comment: Re:ok but (Score 1) 400

>> You and your neighbours can decide to not vote for these people come next election.

Like that would make a differnece. Its not like we get a chance to vote for anyone who would actually be really better. Basically the current system ensures that to even get a chance to stand for election you already have to have sold out big time. Therefore the only choice voters ever get is clown A or clown B, and theres even significant evidence that votes don't actually count as much as you'd think to decide even that.

Comment: Re:You no longer own a car (Score 1) 649

by JustNiz (#49519953) Attached to: Automakers To Gearheads: Stop Repairing Cars

Yep I agree that kit cars (obviously) wouldn't, and also that it seems US car brands are less likely to do it. I believe Cadillac and Ford do it on some newer/pricier models though.

Of course then there's Tesla. You can't even plug into the car's network without getting a nastygram from them, let alone switch out parts yourself.

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.