If Microsoft wasn't the "bad guy", why offer a settlement less than two weeks later?
I don't like Redmond
For some reason I feel like doubting the sincerity of this statement.
I guess every story has at least one.
So, the cop saw someone breaking the law, gave chase, and then they're the bad guys because the suspect tried to ram them?
No, you twit. They're bad guys for lying about it.
No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area.
Charge them for what they did do, not make shit up about what they didn't do. This isn't hard.
Engineers and other employees at TEPCO, or Tokyo Electric Power Co., were once typical of Japan's corporate culture that is famous for prizing loyalty to a single company and lifetime employment with it. But the March 2011 tsunami that swamped the coastal Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, sending three reactors into meltdown, changed that.
TEPCO was widely criticized for being inadequately prepared for a tsunami despite Japan's long history of being hit by giant waves and for its confused response to the disaster. The public turned hostile toward the nuclear industry and TEPCO, or "Toh-den," as the Japanese say it, became a dirty word.
Only 134 people quit TEPCO the year before the disaster. The departures ballooned to 465 in 2011, another 712 in 2012 and 488 last year. Seventy percent of those leaving were younger than 40. When the company offered voluntary retirement for the first time earlier this year, some 1,151 workers applied for the 1,000 available redundancy packages."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
They had proof he hid money. He had no proof he lost the money he hid. So, to the court's satisfaction, he had committed fraud, and the contempt charge was to compel a confession.
Yes, they were demanding that he prove a negative, which is of course impossible to do. If the government couldn't prove that he still had the money, the government had no business holding him.
The thing that Watson (and AI in general) has difficulty with is imagination, it has no experience of the real world so if you asked it something like what would happen if you ran down the street with a bucket of water, it would be stuck. Humans who have never run with a bucket of water will automatically visualise the situation and give the right answer, just as everyone who read the question have just done so in their mind. OTOH a graphics engine can easily show you what would happen to the bucket of water because it does have a limited knowledge of the physical world.
This is the problem with putting AI in a box labeled "Turing test", it (arrogantly) assumes that human conversation is the only definition of intelligence. I'm pretty sure Turing himself would vigorously dispute that assumption if he were alive today.
explain to my poor retard self how it has not passed
By definition, one in three means it failed to convince the average layman, when it gets better that one in two I will give it a pass.
Personally I think it's achievable today but as much as I admire Turing it's entirely irrelevant to the question of intelligence. It's mostly philosophical masterbation by people who misunderstand the modern definition of intelligent behaviour. For example I can't get a sensible reply when asking an octopus about it's garden but there is no denying it's a remarkably intelligent creature.
So now anything we understand is not intelligence?
I heard a great anecdote about this from an MIT proffessor on youtube. Back in the 80's the professor developed an AI program that could translate equations into the handful of standard forms required by calculus and solve them. A student heard about this and went calling to see the program in action. The professor spent an hour explaining the algorithm, when the student finally understood he exclaimed, "That's not intelligent, it's doing calculus the same way I do".
It could be argued that neither the student nor the computer were intelligent since they were simply following rules, but if that's the case the only those handful of mathematicians who discovered the standard form are intelligent. It should also be noted that since that time computers routinely discover previously unknown mathematical truths by brute force extrapolation of the basic axioms of mathematics, however none of them have been particularly useful for humans.
When people dispute the existence of AI what they are really disputing is the existence of artificial consciousness, we simply don't know if a computer operating a complex algorithm is conscious and quite frankly it's irrelevant to the question of intelligence. For example most people who have studied ants agree an ants nest displays highly intelligent behaviour, they have evolved a more efficient and generally better optimised solution to the travelling salesman problem than human mathematics (or intuition) can provide, yet few (if any) people would argue that an ant or it's nest is a conscious being.
This is like looking at obscurity and declaring it a soul
That's the undergraduate view of AI that gets repeated at times in this place.
The measure of intelligence is that we can't understand it?
Not just yet, so instead of waiting until years of work is done understanding the physical basis of thought the impatient want some sort of measure now.