Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Empathy??? (Score 1) 107

Not to mention that the first thing any gamer does when they get a game is turn all that artistic crap off, both to get a better framerate, but also to make the game easier to see. The fewer "artistic effects" on the screen, the easier it is to see what's happening. The idea that gamers care about "artistic intent" is hilarious if you've ever seen any gamer community.

Comment Re:Man selling UBI overstates the need for it (Score 1) 85

There's a reason I phrased it "appearance of working" - you're assuming that enough people will be able to tell the difference between "working right" and "not working right." As long as it looks to be working properly for the majority of use cases, that's good enough. For most of these tasks, it isn't a simple binary between "doesn't work" and "does work," there's a whole spectrum.

In fact, I would argue this ultimately makes AI more dangerous, because it does a very good job of appearing to work while failing in ways a human doesn't.

maybe int he short term some businesses will be fooled and will make radical moves, but if it doesnt work and it doesnt produce profits it will absolutely be ousted and humans will replace it.

Sure, probably, assuming it fails badly enough, which it might. But you're assuming "short term" won't be years, and that it fails in ways that make it clear profit was lost. It's pretty easy to assume that if a computer made a mistake, a human would have as well, especially if you're the one who put the computer in charge.

Comment Re:Man selling UBI overstates the need for it (Score 1) 85

But that's the thing: AI doesn't have to work particularly well to displace hundreds of thousands of white collar jobs. It just has to create the appearance of working, while being cheaper.

It's already there in places where, even at minimum wage, it wouldn't be cost-effective to have a person perform the task, but an AI can do it cheaply enough. Even if it doesn't do it particularly well. That it can do it at all is enough.

Jobs are going to be given to AI, even if the AI does a worse job of it, simply because it's cheaper. The assumption will be that AIs will only ever get cheaper and more productive. The same assumption isn't being made of humans.

Comment Re:"Reporter" should be fired. (Score 1) 77

It's not in the Slashdot blurb because it's not in the Ars Technica blurb. The only reason we know it's Benj Edwards is due to his posts on social media. So I disagree: it shouldn't be in the Slashdot blurb, because it hasn't been verified by, ironically enough, real journalists. Once it's on the record, then Slashdot can post that information, but right now, it hasn't been reported by any official source.

Comment Re:Discord just made itself a much bigger target (Score 3, Interesting) 166

Discord won't be. Some random vendor they use will be.

They're outsourcing the verification process to third party vendors. In fact, they already do:

This will happen, and Discord will try to cover it up, and they'll try to deny it, and they'll try to minimize it -- just like they did a few months ago: ID photos of 70,000 users may have been leaked, Discord says. And then it'll happen again, and again, and again, because who's going to stop them?

That happened with a vendor they contracted customer support to. Discord is happy to point out that none of their systems were compromised. (This is, sadly, very common: a lot of companies "don't store personal data" but instead contract with third parties to do it for them. And, you should also note, no one seems to know who this "third party vendor" is. Likely a small company that can safely shield their clients from legal liability and fold and reincorporate as a "new company" as needed.)

As these third party vendors specialize in "age verification service" via storing face scans and IDs, you can be sure that they're already a huge target for nation-state attackers. But Discord can truthfully claim that their systems were never breached. Just the third party vendors that they chose and that they'll require you to use if you want to access everything Discord offers.

Comment Re:Voice-controlled AI apps in cars :o (Score 3, Interesting) 12

My take is that Apple is finally admitting that Siri is useless as a voice UI and that they're going to let you use other voice UIs.

The whole idea is for essential items to be on the navigation screen, so that the driver doesn't need to fiddle w/ it

Of course, you're still right, because Apple's implementation won't let you replace Siri, but instead require you to launch the specific app that provides the alternative voice control. But it may be worth it to get a voice UI that is functional rather than Siri.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...