Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:Garbage (Score 1) 255

by ceoyoyo (#49156815) Attached to: 5 White Collar Jobs Robots Already Have Taken

When they get something serious, most people want a person around, regardless of their age. Most people also want a person around to do things like take blood, give injections, etc. Things like physiotherapy also work much better with a personal touch. We'll undoubtedly invent robots at some point that will do that, but it's further off.

Comment: Re:Illogical (Score 2) 407

by ceoyoyo (#49150051) Attached to: Leonard Nimoy Dies At 83

In the US the male life expectancy of a 65 year old is about 18 years. Nimoy was wealthy, so add a bit to that. Statistically, he died prematurely. Medically, since he had advanced COPD, he surely did. COPD also sucks, so chances are his last decade or two weren't as nice as they should have been.

Comment: Re:Black Mirror (Score 1) 255

by ceoyoyo (#49142573) Attached to: 5 White Collar Jobs Robots Already Have Taken

I'm going to go ahead and guess you're American? Your culture seems to have this weird blind spot where the rest of the world is concerned.

You know that the populations of the USA, Israel and most, if not all, other countries with modern social systems are reproducing at below replacement levels, right?

Your personal prejudices are causing you to focus on a few niche groups. Grow up.

Comment: Re:Ignorant premise (Score 1) 528

by ceoyoyo (#49142487) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

I'm not sure what assertion you think I don't have any evidence to back up. That babies show outward evidence of emotion? You made the same assertion with zero evidence, but it shouldn't be hard to find some. That you don't know if it's genuine emotion (whatever that is) or just outward signs of it? Sorry, you've got to provide evidence for what you know, not me.

William of Ockham would say you're full of baloney. You seem to be proposing that there's some je ne c'est quoi ("emotion") that we (and babies) have that isn't an emergent property and for some reason cannot be possessed by an artificial construct. That mystical hypothesis is much more complicated than the idea that there is no magic and things like "feeling emotion" or "looking happy" are properties of complex systems in the right arrangement.

Comment: Re:Garbage (Score 1) 255

by ceoyoyo (#49142421) Attached to: 5 White Collar Jobs Robots Already Have Taken

You don't really need a supercomputer. The math involved is really very simple. Determining what the coefficients are is difficult and expensive, requiring large trials, but once you've got them your phone, plus a nurse, lab and imaging equipment, is more than capable of diagnosing the vast majority of things you're likely to get.

Most people do want a person around to reassure them. Also, until the robots get good enough, the nurse can provide an objective assessment of symptoms.

Comment: Re:Ignorant premise (Score 2) 528

by ceoyoyo (#49139553) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Babies demonstrate characteristics we associate with emotion. They look at stuff, grab things, cry, and smile. You don't know that they actually have "emotion" or are just genetically programmed to exhibit those behaviours so you don't eat them.

Even if you do think babies have emotion, unless you believe in some mystical soul, they must have developed it at some point. Do fetuses have emotion? Embryos? Fertilized eggs? Unfertilized eggs?

Comment: Re:one thing required for AI religion (Score 2) 528

by ceoyoyo (#49139471) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Not many people who believe in a religion understand it, much less understand the concept of religion itself.

You can get animals, including humans, to act superstitiously using plain old reinforcement learning. That's not hard at all to program into a computer. Add in "parents" teaching "children" and greater credulousness in the children and you'd have something strongly resembling religion. No understanding necessary.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.