Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Human brain is NOT a computer (Score 1) 148

Interestingly both spellings, computer and computor, mean either an electronic computational device, or a human who does computations.

I was taught in CS that for most algorithms it is useful to picture the pseudocode being implemented by humans passing around slips of paper and doing the computations by hand, because it helps to visualize scale, organization, communication, etc. So if humans were implementing the same predictive algorithm by hand, would it still be accused of being artificial, or intelligent?

Comment Re:A little too late. (Score 1) 180

IME the Chinese parts suppliers are very happy to update firmware and push out an update in just a few hours with little or no testing, and the only reason westerners have trouble getting the updates is that we don't read Chinese.

Japanese can read the Chinese well enough to send the right email to get the updates.

Plus, they might really be able to get them standardized in the main tourist areas for the sporting events. They don't have to update the whole country to get a noticeable improvement.

Comment Re:That Quarter (Score 1) 180

Here in the US all sinks have labeled handles, and they might be backwards because we have a lot of Homers and a blue collar work culture of just pointing the new guy at a task and saying, "figure it out." Even chances the labels are wrong, or the hot and cold are really swapped.

If you stay in the cattle sections you only get one temperature anyways so no problem.

Comment Re:Yeah, I've been told my odds are bad. (Score 1) 148

Exactly! If somebody wants to be healthy, they want to do it already. If they're in the doctor's office with those problems, most likely they already don't value their health. These are usually easy decisions for everybody; people already know if they value themselves more or less than fried foods!

Comment Re:Yeah, I've been told my odds are bad. (Score 1) 148

Once the damage is done, it's often irreversible, short of something like a heart transplant. Diet and exercise can help you lose weight and strengthen the hert and lungs, but only if the system isn't already broken.

That is complete nonsense, my advice to you is: don't give out medical advice.

Comment Re:This is not AI (Score 1) 148

Second, at 80% accuracy (and the thing it actually predicts....), it sucks badly. You will probably have to search a while to find an experienced expert that does this badly on this classification task.

What stands out to me is that there is no control. They mention in the limitations of the study that they're comparing the output of the program to predictions based on the somewhat arbitrary reporting categories for heart disease, when the disease it known to have multiple components in real patients. The categories are not a viable stand-in for human predictive performance, they are intentionally over-simplified. If the software was given data segmented by reporting category it would have lower performance, but perhaps it would give a better idea of how good the predictions are.

Comment Re:80% accuracy (Score 1) 148

You don't even need to find out what their claim was to know that the headline is horse shit. The word "when" sets things up grammatically to offer a claim, but by itself it doesn't mean anything. But death has meaning, and a prediction having 80% accuracy has meaning, so it combines to a false claim. When could mean anything, it could mean the minute, second, picosecond, day, year, decade, millennium, etc. But it can't mean all of those, so it is false if you use the given precision.

Comment Re:"developed an artificial intelligence(AI) progr (Score 1) 148

I for one am not being dismissive of the useful of the algorithms at all when I say they're not more or less artificial nor more or less intelligent than other programs.

That's the problem, it is just regular software. Like calling software an "app" doesn't change anything, it is just a label. The problem with the AI label it is that none of the words are accurate descriptions of how it differs from other software. The problem isn't that programs are "merely" programs, but that software programs are not trees, ice cream, stars, or the feeling of spring. If you called apps "ice cream," people would complain, and it would have nothing to do with them looking down on ice cream.

It would be better if they just named the specific algorithm that it uses instead of the useless catch-all of "AI." It makes sense for academia to arbitrarily classify which things go into which classes and departments, but it doesn't make sense for programmers generally, or program users, to slavishly follow those categorizations where there are more descriptive and more accurate ones at hand.

Something might be an expert system, or be an application based on a neural network. But still, unless it is buggy all the intelligence in the system was engineered by the programmers; a "self-learning" algorithm only learns what it was engineered to learn, and what it learned accidentally due to bugs. And the engineer isn't even artificial!

Comment Re:Human brain is NOT a computer (Score 0) 148

I read through the paper... and it may not resemble how computers process instructions and retrieve data...

OK so you did understand the parts that were in context of this thread!

"The brain is just a computer" is hand-wavy and objectively incorrect. It is not necessary to prove it is some other thing to demonstrate that it isn't a computer, for all useful values of "computer" including common English usage.

"The brain is just a computer" is entirely subjective, and like other opinions when it is claimed as objective fact it is simply false. If you want it to be true, you have to leave it as an opinion, where it isn't claiming to refute or even contradict other opinions.

Comment Re:"developed an artificial intelligence(AI) progr (Score 1) 148

The only reason the term doesn't have any meaning is because everyone's definition of "intelligence" is different in the first place.

I disagree that that is the only reason. Another reason is that we don't agree on the term "artificial." In most cases I would say that all the intelligence, regardless of how that part is defined, came from the programmer and not the software.

We actually can't agree on the meaning of any part of the term!

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.