Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Typical Google (Score 2) 10

More likely they succeeded in monetizing it for a bit of jack under the table. That tool could easily have turned up gov. web sites or any of our dear Fascist company web sites (Oracle, Palantir, etc.)

Whatever little money could have been made that way would absolutely not have been worth the PR risk of it leaking, especially since Google employees aren't good at keeping secrets.

Comment Re:Typical Google (Score 3, Interesting) 10

Another tool retired because they couldn't see a way to monetise it, obligatory xkcd reference.

Nah. I had some conversations with a guy who had worked on it and it really just didn't turn out to be very useful. It didn't find a lot of stuff that wasn't already in public leaked data databases, and when it did send information to users they were often confused about what to do. Worse, fake alert emails were being used for phishing. Shutting the program down probably won't impede that abuse much, but maybe a few people who get a phishing email who would have trusted it because they knew about and had signed up for the program will now not trust it because they know the program has been shut down.

Comment Re:Too bad we can't just put something on the roof (Score 1) 65

I guess you could go semi off-grid... i.e. turn the master breaker off at the meter most of the time. My installer says that if you haven't used any power from the grid in 30 days, the power company will contact you to find out what's up, and if you haven't used any in 60 days they will definitely contact you. Of course, you'll still have to pay the basic connection fees even if you avoid actually using a non-trivial amount of their power.

My power company already reduced the credit from $0.09/kWh to $0.04/kWh, and changed so they net out the credits and debits each billing period, where before they'd allow credits to carry over for up to 12 months. My ROI estimate is based on the current deal, which of course could change. Probably will, somewhat. I do expect the price to go up over time. Right now I'm paying $0.07/kWh off-peak -- and of course with the battery I should never pay on-peak prices.

Comment Re:Too bad we can't just put something on the roof (Score 2) 65

I looked into solar but the ROI simply was not there for my use case.

I just installed solar + battery on my house (full commission is this afternoon, meaning I'll be able to net meter against the grid). As things stand now, the ROI is there, but the payback period is a bit long (~10 years), but that's only because my electricity is pretty cheap ($0.12/kWh is the average price here; I'm on a TOU plan where I pay $0.28 on-peak (6-10pm weekdays) and $0.06/kWh off-peak). Given the grid challenges I think it's reasonable to expect prices to go up and knock a couple of years off that ROI.

Of course, having the government pay for 30% of the system definitely helped, and that's not available after December 31. Unless/until it gets reinstated by a future administration.

Submission + - Companies getting a productivity boost from AI aren't turning around and firing (yahoo.com)

ZipNada writes: The explosion in AI models, software, and agents has raised questions about the impact of the technology on the broader job market as companies find new efficiencies from this new technology.

But according to EY's latest US AI Pulse Survey, just 17% of 500 business executives at US companies that saw productivity gains via AI turned around and cut jobs.

"There's a narrative that we hear quite frequently about companies looking to take that benefit that they're seeing and put it into the financial statements reducing costs, or cutting heads," EY global consulting AI leader Dan Diasio told Yahoo Finance.

"But the data that we asked those 500 executives does not bear that out. That is happening less than one out of five times, and more often they are reinvesting that," he added.

Comment Re:Cooperation Governments needed (Score 0) 45

doing ethnic purges not only historically but also RIGHT NOW

We're funding one not only historically but RIGHT NOW

Kind of, yes, and clearly we should stop, but this isn't the same thing. We're supporting an ally that has gone off the reservation, not doing the bad thing ourselves, and that distinction does matter.

openly preparing to invade their peaceful neighbour Taiwan

Venezuela, bitch.

Indeed. The US actions toward Venezuela are worse than China's against Taiwan.

operating the Great Firewall

Yeah, we don't have a great firewall, we just have unconstitutional citizen spying programs with taps on all backhaul links and points of ingress/egress.

That's true, and bad, but also completely different. China has much more intrusive spying of its own citizens plus actively and deliberately suppresses any kind of dissenting press (meaning shuts them down and throws them in jail or disappears them, not just ceases inviting them to press conferences) and openly and energetically works to block citizen access to any source of information not under the party's control.

Your post was largely a list of false equivalencies between pairs of vaguely-similar things, but this one has to take the cake.

implementing some absurdly Orwellian schemes like their Social Score thing

Wait until you find out about credit scores and employment or renting a home.

I'm not prepared to agree that credit scores are actually a bad thing, but even if I were, those scores just rate how good people are at managing money (and whether they manage their money the way the banks like), not anything like a Chinese social score.

not to mention stealing all western IP they can lay their hands on

Yeah, we sent it to them so they could build us stuff, and our nation was very much founded on ignoring patents.

Indeed.

and abusing their trade dominance (rare earths anyone) in any way they can.

You mean the rare earths we stopped producing because we got them cheaper from China, and could be producing again but we don't want to?

All true, and I don't think any of this is particularly "bad". Trading partners leverage their advantages, that's how it works. We let ourselves get into a bad situation on rare earths. That's hardly China's fault.

My point here is not that any of this shit China is doing is great. My point is that we are doing all the same shit, and if you don't think so, you're a nationalistic dipshit with his head so far up his ass he can see out of his own mouth.

No, it's really not the "same shit". You're pointing out a bunch of bad things that we're doing, things that are objectively not equivalent to the worse things China is doing, and calling them equivalent. If you're willing to play that game, every country is terrible, because all of them are imperfect. The degree of badness matters, and the system's interest in and options for correcting the badness also matter.

Comment Re:Nowhere near AGI (Score 1) 161

You're quoting someone as saying we're as far away as we ever were and claiming it's nonsense because nobody knows how far away we are?

You're not addressing the issue implied and nothing you're saying remotely contradicts it.

His claim that we're as far away as ever implies that he has some ability to discern how far from AGI we are. My point is that he does not, no one does.

There's another objection that I did not raise, but it's worth mentioning: His contention that we have made no progress implies that the observable progress we've made over the last decades, and especially the last five years, is actually not progress at all. That implies that it must actually be motion in a different direction, orthogonal to the direction required to achieve AGI, because clearly he cannot be claiming that there has been no movement. If that's the claim, well, he's just delusional.

It is, of course, possible that all of our progress has been in the wrong direction entirely and that therefore we've made no progress. I think that's unlikely, because it certainly looks like we're moving in the right direction, but we can't fundamentally know what constituted progress and what didn't until we arrive, which brings me back to my point about the unknowability of our position.

Comment Re:94% of Trump's cases lose in lower courts (Score 1) 133

Do you think you'll still feel that the presidency is above the law, allowed to override or ignore Congress, when a Democrat is in the office? I think the theory of the all-powerful executive that Trump is pushing is clearly unconstitutional, but let's suppose it becomes the law of the land. Do you actually think you'll like that outcome?

Comment Re:94% of Trump's cases lose in lower courts (Score 1) 133

And 94% of them are overturned in favor of Trump when they get to the Supreme court, usually on the shadow docket with absolutely no reason given.

This really isn't accurate. Yes, SCOTUS has stayed a lot of injunctions, but I think most of the rulings on the merits -- where they actually do have to give some plausible reasoning -- will go the other way. I think the Roberts court wants to give Trump his way on basically everything, and I think they'll employ a lot of very twisty logic to justify what they can, issuing a lot of bad ruling along the way, but most of his actions are so wrong that they'll ultimately have to shut them down.

Comment Re:Nowhere near AGI (Score 4, Interesting) 161

we are basically still as far away from AGI as we ever were

Nonsense.

No one knows how far we are from AGI, and anyone who tells you they do is either deluded or lying. It's impossible to know until either (a) we achieve it or (b) we have a sufficiently well-developed theory of intelligence that we can explain it. And, actually, even knowing whether we've built AGI is difficult without the explanatory theory, because without the theory we can't even define what AGI is.

We might be decades away, or we might have already done it and just not noticed yet.

About the only thing you can say for certain is that there is no logical reason to believe that we won't build AGI eventually. Unguided evolution, which is just random variation and competitive selection, achieved it. Our own knowledge creation processes are also variation and selection, but because they operate at an abstract level without the need to modify a physical genotype and wait for phenotypic expression and outcome, they run many orders of magnitude faster. So we will succeed at creating AGI unless we collectively decide not to, and collectively decide to be very serious about enforcing a ban on AI research.

There similarly is no reason to believe that AI won't become superintelligent. Silicon-based intelligence has obvious advantages over the much less-capable substrate that evolution cobbled together. And even if that weren't the case, we would just devise better options. So, the only logical argument against superintelligence is that there is some law of physics that dictates an upper bound to intelligence, and that the peak levels of human intelligence have already achieved it. And even if there is an upper limit on intelligence, and we're it, we should absolutely expect our AIs to reach the same level BUT be orders of magnitude faster than we are, thanks to better miniaturization and faster signal propagation. Imagine the smartest people in the world, but make them able to think and communicate 1000 times faster. Could we even distinguish that from superhuman intelligence? And it seems far more likely that there is no upper bound on intelligence.

The author of TFA may be right that some people are using discussion of AGI and ASI as a way to amass political power now, but that doesn't change the underlying reality that AGI and ASI are almost certainly coming, even if we have absolutely no idea when. Personally, I think it's more likely that the author is uncomfortable thinking about the implications of the arrival of AGI and ASI and prefers to retreat into political theories that keep humans in the pre-eminent position, maintaining the comfortable view that we only have to be concerned about what humans do to each other.

Comment Re:Robot vacuum cleaners - meh (Score 1) 93

A real vacuum cleaner just about maxes out a standard residential 120v 15a circuit, as anyone who remembers the incandescent bulb era can attest to. A circuit with a few lamps shared with a vacuum cleaner could easily end with you flipping a breaker or replacing a blown fuse.

When you look at the absolutely tiny lithium ion pack these robo-vacs come with, ...

Sitting on my kitchen table right now is a drone pack. It's 57,5Wh, smaller the batteries of most modern Roombas. It's 50C - thus it can output up to 2,9kW. And there's even higher packs available than that. Lithium ion cells can handle some truly high power outputs. It's *energy*, not *power*, that is their limitation. Run a pack at 50C and it'll be empty in a bit over a minute. That said, on hard floor surfaces there is absolutely no reason why you should be drawing more than 300-400W or so, and you can get by with well less than that. High powers are for like shag carpeting and the like. Also, the head matters more than the power (though of course contribute) - for a hard floor, for example, a fluffy roller head is ideal.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...