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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More R (Score 1) 176

by Tablizer (#49159009) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

Technology creates new fields

Yes, I realize that, but will it always be enough to offset the losses? I don't see enough "new fields" to replace lost factory jobs. Retail? That seems like a stretch, but the web and self-checkout technologies are eating into that also. Plus, retail pays lower than factory work.

Road construction, gas stations, repair shops, car factories, etc. clearly offset any loss in the "horse and coach" business. I don't see the equivalent in quantity these days.

Comment: Re:Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More R (Score 2) 176

by Tablizer (#49157323) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

It used to be that new technologies created new jobs as it destroyed old ones. But that's merely a historical pattern, not necessarily a law of nature, and it may end.

It's kind of like Moore's Law: it's held so far, but nobody knows if it will keep.

Many conservatives feel that if the gov't doesn't meddle, new jobs will come from somewhere. However, they are slow to name specifics. The few they could name are also ripe for offshoring.

Comment: Both (Score 1) 45

by Tablizer (#49138951) Attached to: The Believers: Behind the Rise of Neural Nets

Should they imitate how we imagine the mind to work, as a Cartesian wonderland of logic and abstract thought that could be coded into a programming language? Or should they instead imitate a drastically simplified version of the actual, physical brain, with its web of neurons and axon tails, in the hopes that these networks will enable higher levels of calculation? Itâ(TM)s a dispute that has shaped artificial intelligence for decades.

I suspect to get "true" AI, both of these will have to work together. Neural nets (NN's) will provide hunches and guesses, but the AI will have to model these hunches and guesses in an abstract or semi-realistic way to both test the logic of them, and to be able to communicate with humans about its findings or suggestions.

The AI will be able to "draw" or describe a cartoon-like model of suggestions or events the way a human might in a meeting explaining something about travel, events, human relationships, time-lines, etc. This requires some kind of abstract modelling.

This is pretty much how most human minds work: hunches based on past and/or re-occurring patterns teamed up with abstract modeling at an "object" level to both communicate and test hunches, as created by NN-like pattern matching at a mostly sub-conscience level.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.