"Eventually your main way of controlling a computer will no longer be pointing and clicking or tapping on menus and dialogue boxes. Instead, you'll be able to write a request in plain English...."

Eventually? No kidding.

"Advances in AI will enable the creation of a personal agent... It will see your latest emails, know about the meetings you attend, read what you read, and read the things you don't want to bother with."

My wife already knows this. Her boyfriend already knows this. My secretary already knows this. Google already knows this. Facebook already knows this

"I think in the next five to 10 years, AI-driven software will finally deliver on the promise of revolutionizing the way people teach and learn.”

Until a teacher’s union gets wind of how much money it will lose.

“It will know your interests and your learning style so it can tailor content that will keep you engaged.”

Tailoring content isn’t learning. It’s pigeon-holing you into to content and never showing what else is available to actually learn about.

“It will measure your understanding, notice when you're losing interest, and understand what kind of motivation you respond to. It will give immediate feedback."

Just like the Government, Gold diggers, Hookers, the Ex-Wife’s Lawyer, and the unending barrage of “feedback & satisfaction” emails one receives after purchasing something.

"AIs will dramatically accelerate the rate of medical breakthroughs. The amount of data in biology is very large, and it's hard for humans to keep track of all the ways that complex biological systems work. There is already software that can look at this data, infer what the pathways are, search for targets on pathogens, and design drugs accordingly. Some companies are working on cancer drugs that were developed this way."

But can it define what a “woman” is? Ya know basic biologic facts or will it “learn” what is currently fashionably acceptable to its programmers.

“AI will "help health-care workers make the most of their time by taking care of certain tasks for them — things like filing insurance claims, dealing with paperwork, and drafting notes from a doctor's visit. I expect that there will be a lot of innovation in this area.... AIs will even give patients the ability to do basic triage, get advice about how to deal with health problems, and decide whether they need to seek treatment."

Obviously he’s never seen how Medicaid works or how typical “frequent flyers” to the emergency room behave.

I think I last logged in to /. about 10 years ago maybe. Gates was considered an idiot then and it appears nothing has changed. See ya in 10 more years if I’m still alive and kicking.

Yeah ... some Americans, some Kurds from Northern Iraq, and some Iranians from the al-Faw peninsula seem to think chemical weapons were in Iraq also. I wonder how they came up with such obvious nonsense.

As Baghdad Bob once said, "It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."

Tell Bob I said hello!

While I understand your point and agree with the sentiment I would like to point out that a "power user" or "experienced computer guru" would definitely have no problems with a changed UI. This is silly.

The figure of 6 million comes to mind.

Actually the vast majority were Jews. But don't let facts get in the way! ;)

The Fifth Amendment, as invoked, is an individual right. It is not a societal issue in this context.

Kind of sums it up for you!

When you're trapped on an island with 5 other people or you emerge from your classroom let me know. Until then enjoy your fantasy world.

Yes just like those. Those institutions are not beyond reproach such as those that exist in a socialist state.

I wonder if that will still work for you when Bubba bends you over the bunk in the cell block after the po po locks you up? I suppose you'd be fine giving up 2/3's of your colon since Bubba needs some love too! All for the greater good huh?

Pardon me as I quote the relevant part of your argument. You're not exactly pithy.

There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component. So the " individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc" is a central part of socialism. The socialist state oppresses individual rights by using authoritarianism to manipulate and control elections, due process, and prohibit democracy. Usually by force.

The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.

Considering that we go back to your comment that "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation". No amount of oppression by state controlled anything, even if in moderation, can remotely be considered "a good thing".

Actually I responded to this specific point in your comment with a joke before you took off on a tangent, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" posted on 12:56 PM March 12th, 2013.

I also could have swore you were the one who just wrote, "Let's simplify: Republicans are Authoritarian Capitalists. Democrats are Libertarian Socialists.". There was no pretending. You wrote it.

Since we're simplifying maybe if you acknowledged that one who practices "socialism" is a "socialist" and one who practices "capitalism" is a "capitalist" we would be able to get somewhere, but then again I doubt you even want to see the forest through those trees.

Since we're simplifying let's consider that your stated position, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" is a lot like saying, "Taking 2/3 of your wealth and restricting basic freedoms is a moderation we can live with." I'm sorry ... I prefer to keep the wealth I create and maintain the freedoms I have based on a government "By the People, For the People" instead of "From the People, In spite of the People".

Like I said before. It's your story tell it anyway you want.

Comparing one system where citizens have due process versus one, such as socialism, where one does not to evading taxes is pretty disingenuous! Try the same scenario in a socialist country like China or DPRK and not only will the state come in with guns drawn ... but they may very well shoot you and imprison your family as well. I think most would rather have laws and rules, as well as penalties for violating them, drawn by someone they've elected to represent them than by socialist party power brokers who have no regard for individual freedoms and rights.

One cannot have a free market economy in a socialist state. By the very definition of socialism free markets cannot exist because socialism does not allow it to exist.

LOL. Economic influence is nil? Like they never manipulate currency to gain unfair advantage in world markets. Like they never starve their population while the "Dear Leader" buys expensive jewelry, cars, and a Western education.

At least be honest!

Since you admit it is specific to a particular domain then shall "We" get specific?

False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state ... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.

Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights. Only privileges which can be rescinded without due process. If you, or anyone else, dislike the process ... well ... as they used to say in the former Soviet Union. Toughski Shitski.

"Semantics" ... meaning. Yes, let's discuss meaning. Socialism is a political system, controlled by a few, where it's subjects have little, or no, opportunity for due process, representation, or individual rights. In other words it means no freedom. So you are right ... it's not very capitalist. In Capitalism, which is not itself a political system, at least one has the opportunity to grow and profit from one's own efforts when paired with a political system that emphasizes individual freedoms over that off the state.

Still no!

But you keep straying from the original topic of this /. article. It was "What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times"!

It doesn't matter because in both Socialist countries, and countries such as the U.S., he would have been brought up on charges. I would dare say at least in the U.S. he will have his day in court. In Socialist flagship countries such as China and the DPRK he wouldn't even have the right to shut the fuck up!

Now go back to reading your "Pol Pot for Dummies" book.

You seem to confuse "public" with "socialized" ... a lot actually

It's your story. Tell it like you want.

I'm assuming this is so you can hammer your own nails, in the lid of your own coffin, as you are forced to give 2/3 or more of your wealth to the state. Well I guess you could rest in peace knowing that everyone else paid the same amount for their nails and hammer as you did!

Meanwhile the Agnostics remind us that no one really knows for sure, or can know for sure, where the damn car keys are!

By "Rockefeller" I assume you mean the J.D. Rockefeller who died in 1937.

I don't mean to alarm you but if you think it's 1937 you probably ought to know that tomorrow Jack Benny and Fred Allen will start a feud that lasts 12 years. Later on in December Japan will occupy Nanking, even after Chiang Kai-shek destroyed the dikes along the Yellow River. Joe Medwick of the St. Louis Cardinals was baseball's MVP. You might also want to know that War Admiral won the Triple Crown in horse racing in case you wish to place a bet.

What would I do?

I would welcome you to 2013 where your loosely associated academic tidbits of perfunctory bullshit from 76 years ago have absolutely no context today. Get a sense of humor would you! My original reply on 12:26 PM March 13th, 2013 was a freakin' joke!