Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Lets call it what it is (Score 1) 27

Sorry, but even not the AIs often come up with answers no human has ever thought of. It's not that you're wrong about the errors, you aren't. But they have working original insights, and design working machines that no human understands (admittedly this may be because not too many people have studied them).

Yes, AIs are currently vastly inferior to people, but they also don't think the same way. (Or even the same as each other.) AFAIK, nobody has a good explanation for this effect yet, I sure don't. But I predicted it would show up when I saw https://news.mit.edu/2019/why-... several years ago.

When an AI appears to reason the same way you do, it's probably because it's running a successful simulation of how you would evaluate the situation. It's quite clear from various other research (psychology, biology, etc.) that humans don't see the world as it *is*, but rather as it's probably going to be useful for them to see it. To pick one obvious example, you've got a blind spot in the middle of your visual field for each eye that is about as large as the image of the full moon. And you never notice it.

Comment Re:About that standard candle (Score 1) 15

That does, indeed, seem to be a big question. OTOH, the "tip of the Red Giant" measure seems to agree with the "type 1a supernova" measure. (But I'm not sure how big the error bars are.)

N.B.: I'm no expert in this field. But I think the actual experts admit to a lot more uncertainty than ever shows up in popular articles.

Comment Re:Fast track this (Score 1) 104

Actually it's not certain that would always make things worse, and it should work...if the tumor hasn't metastasized.

The question is, "Is it any better than the other poisons that get injected into tumors to kill them?". One might suspect that it had worse side effects, but this might be wrong. (I believe every treatment of that kind has pretty bad side effects.)

Comment Re:Failure to evaluate and monitor ... (Score 2) 87

I think it depends on context. IIUC...
If the hacking damaged someone who is a customer of Clorox, then it's Clorox's resonsibility. But it they've got a strong contract with someone else to do the work, they can try to collect those damages from the contracted company. And if it causes damage to Clorox's business, then then can try to collect damages from the contracted company.
Still, if one of Clorox's customers was injured, Clorox is the one they sue, not the contractor. Recovering the damages from the contractor is on Clorox.

Slashdot Top Deals

Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. -- Tom Lehrer

Working...