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.
Because "cheaper" isn't the only metric one uses to decide which type of power plant to build.
The #1 problem in all these discussions is that most people pick one single attribute, then say "Power plant type X is the best because it is the SELECT_ONE_OF( greenest | quickest to build | best ramp rate | cheapest to run | supplies the most power | safest)"
The underlying problem is that the laws protect the police so long as they *think* they are doing their duty. So it is almost impossible to bring a case against them.
No quality problem is ever solved by adding more signature lines to the paperwork. Code needs to be reviewed and tested no matter what the source. I just migrated some old software to a newer library, and used an automated tool to make some syntax changes to the code. Had it been an AI tool instead nothing would have gone differently: reviewed, tested, committed.
It is called the Department of War. Hilariously enough the rest of the Fortune article uses the correct name everywhere else, it's only the quoted sentence that misnames it.
Microsoft has tried this open approach many times, but they seem to always fail: Windows Phone, Zune / PlaysForSure, Media Center, Windows Tablet, Microsoft Surface, Windows Mixed Reality. Over the last 20 years people seem to prefer the walled garden over the open platform.
Who wants to speculate why?
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.
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.
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.
That is not true. There's no magical alien group who nominates candidates. We the People nominate them, and this is what We keep choosing
Apple's mistake was building *privacy* into their AI model. Nobody else did that, and it crippled Apple's solution. Apple pushed 5GB of AI model data to everyone's phone, and everyone complained about the space usage. Next up their AI is slow because it is using resources on the phone instead of big data centers. Apple did what everyone asked for, but users were ultimately unwilling to accept the compromise.
Personally, I liked the Apple solution better. On Android, if I lose internet for 2 seconds, and say to my phone "Call Bob Smith" it sits there for several minutes then times out with "try again later". BUT IT GETS WORSE: The local hardware transcribed the text perfectly. So there was no need for a server to be involved at all!
Apple's old approach was the right one, so it is really sad that they botched it.
EFF resources on age verification
I thought I understood the issues and options and trade-offs, but after reading this I realize there is much more to it than I considered. This is a really good resource, and some of the articles under it are bite-sized so you can send to non-techies and make them go "oh yeaah.... I hadn't thought about it that way.... maybe this isn't such a good idea....?!"
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.
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.
I am not the OP, but perhaps each vendor should not have to architect this function, since it is such a high security risk. Instead, use infrastructure like apt, yum, chocolatey, Windows Update, Steam, etc.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
