On the other hand, speech recognition was one of those notoriously "just around the corner" technologies for decades, but it finally made it to prime time. The same was true for speech synthesis, though less remarked-upon.
It's not perfect, but I have an easier time with Alexa than many humans. That goes double for the speech synthesis.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Even something day-to-day like a simple "AI" that tweaks grocery-store prices harms some people to some degree when it raises prices.
People and current "AIs" violate the first law all the time, or they'd be paralyzed into inaction. Most decisions of any importance end up hurting somebody in some way.
The 3 laws are a simplification -- a dangerous gross oversimplification. They're just something an author dreams up with his author buddies during a night of drinking, not something that just needs tweaking to make it work.
Occam warns us to make things as simple as possible, but his very next few words warn against oversimplification.
The scooter drivers have a right to be on the road.
They're on the sidewalk.
This is really a problem with LA traffic law & culture since it's legal to ride bicycles, skateboards and other "exclusively human-powered" vehicles on the sidewalk. This has led to the public perception that anything goes on the sidewalks.
Technically, scooters are powered and thus aren't allowed on the sidewalk, but LA cops aren't keen to wade into this so they just ignore the entire issue -- like they pretty much ignore anything that happens off the roadway. Scooters, electric-assist bicycles, etc rule the sidewalks.
Quite a few [hundreds of $thousands]. We also have to pay for janitorial services, internet access, and other costs of doing business.
That would bankrupt over 95% of the websites on the net. They mop their own floors, pay $20/month for hosting, buy off-brand laser cartridges, don't gaze down at the world from the 22nd floor.
The GDPR gives significant leniency for "inadvertent" violations of their policies for companies you wouldn't normally expect to even understand the laws (such as small online stores).
[Citation needed] Sorely needed.
If you are small enough that a hundred thousand in legal fees is unreasonable, and your business model is not built around the sale and distribution of customer data, you don't have to worry about the GDPR much.
What specifically does "much" entail? And are you volunteering to pay the $20M Euro fine? Frankly, I'd have to be a very sloppy businessman to skip proper legal advice for such a large liability, if just to to get a proper idea of what "much" means.
You completely misread my remark. It's about people -- not banks -- and US law certainly isn't what's at issue here.
I was remarking that the poster was blithely saying that he'd prefer to not do business with certain companies and that the poster's ok with a law that rams the poster's choice down the throats of neighbors, family, countrymen...
WTF!? Is that just Skidmore College, or what?
As a workaround, we exaggerate the spacing between monospaced (e.g. Courier) sentences by double-spacing to make it easier to spot sentence breaks. Old-school typewriters spaced characters like "i" the same as "W", leading to a lot of blank space between letters of the same word. The eye of and decent reader "fixates" and recognizes entire words, phrases or sentences, but the inter-letter space within words makes words harder to automatically pick out. This is why proportionally-set text is easier to read.
The main body copy of books & magazines are typeset in proportional fonts. Duh. These fonts have been carefully designed and tweaked over hundreds (yes, hundreds) of years by people who thought and cared deeply about readability. Also good looks, but readability was key. They did many tests and experiments to maximize ease and speed of reading. THE WIDTH OF THE BLANK IS PART OF THE DESIGN. If the designer wanted wider spaces, s/he would put them there.
And I'm better at reading my own handwriting than other people's. Anybody surprised?
This study is touting a statistically insignificant (3% difference measured on roughly half of a 60-person group) "result" that says people perform better on what they're used to.
In college, that deserves an F.
GDPR is based on location, not citizenship. https://cybercounsel.co.uk/data-subjects/
Big corporations will deal with the law and end up liking it because it keeps out the riffraff. They can easily afford the consultants, lawyers, etc. Smaller would-be players, not so much.
This has been the way of Europe for a long time: a long list of (originally) well-intentioned, "reasonable" laws, regulations, taxes, requirements, etc. (not to mention bribes, shakedowns) that conspire by their sheer mass to raise the barrier to starting and operating a small business.
Nope. GDPR is based on location, not citizenship. https://cybercounsel.co.uk/data-subjects/
As a EU resident... I'd rather not do business with those companies.
And you'd rather impose that "choice" on hundreds of millions of your neighbors too, since GDPR can't be waived.
I manage the CRM of a US financial institution with EU clients and there is guidance
So, how many $hundreds of thousands did some legal team charge your employer that guidance, not to mention ongoing guidance and review?
This bears the seeds of Gibson's dystopian vision of never-ending corporate cyber-warfare. Hard to see how companies could resist using this as a pretext for gaining commercial advantage.
Basically it is saying
No, you can't do that with the law!
Instead, try for "the maximum that a creative lawyer could stretch this to mean..." and then double it.
There's nothing worse for your business than extra Santa Clauses smoking in the men's room. -- W. Bossert
