Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Drones Are Not AI (Score 1) 163

They just aren't. They are not conscious, and have no ability to think. They are simply engineered automation using the same information processing strategies -- pattern recognition and data repositories -- computer science has always used. But the hyperbolic "AI community' has so over-promised and under-delivered that they had to dumb-down the term, into "strong" (real) and "weak" (fake) AAI. So now when they call drones "AI" (meaning weak AI), we are deceived into ascribing have the dangers of autonomous drones with weapons, which are very real, to AI as a category, which is science fiction.

So let's just leave AI out of it. Any weapon that can fly around, select human targets, and destroy them, autonomously is hugely dangerous. So dangerous as to be a war crime. For the very reason that strong AI is a complete fantasy: these machines do not think, cannot make anything like rational judgements, or weigh the consequences of their actions. Nothing but a human can do that. All autonomous drones have at their disposal is pattern matching and information repositories, programmed by humans who have never once written a bug-free non-trivial program.

Comment CR should release its test procedures (Score 2) 268

Then anyone can run the tests CR refuses to re-run. If they're that confidently of their results, they should be happy to provide the detailed equipment and steps, along with corresponding results, to the public. This is the way science is done: if you make an assertion, then you have to provide the raw data to let someone else try to reproduce your results.

Anything less is unscientific anecdotal evidence.

Comment Jailed for security research! (Score 1) 55

This message was relayed to be by an inmate at a Texas jail facility: "I'm writing this from the Dallas PD lockup. I was out in the Ft. Worth area doing security research of residential door knobs, testing which doors might be open and thus exposing housing to breaches. Some guy named Justin Shafer confronted me when I apparently accessed the knobs on his house. He called the cops and now I'm charged with attempted burglary! I explained that my intentions were purely honorable; after all, I'm not a thief! Yes, it's true, I copied some of his mail off the desk in the den, but that was just so I could prove the vulnerability to the gan... er, security community. Anyway, the arraignment didn't go so well, even after I explained that the judge should be thanking me. So I've got a contempt citation too. All I can say is, thank goodness for identity theft!

Comment Re: Who is doing the building? (Score 1) 107

K. S. Kyosuke, We don't know how humans solve problems, so how can we know anything about the fidelity of so-called AI? For example, how does a human look at a chess board and evaluate positions to determine the next move? Nobody knows. Computers do an exhaustive search of available moves to a certain depth, which humans are incapable of, so that disproves your claim straight off.

Comment Re: Putting "intelli" in a product's name... (Score 1) 107

Incidentally, Dagger2, claiming that challenging the truth of a scientific theory is part of some kind of conspiratorial "effect" (as in "AI effect") is backwards. Science is not a consensus enterprise. It only takes a single unanswerable challenge to unwind centuries of a mistaken theory. The burden of proof is on the researcher, not the challenger. Moreover, the challenger has no obligation to provide a better theory.

This is called "The Science Effect."

Comment Re: Putting "intelli" in a product's name... (Score 2) 107

Sorry Pamela. Every time WIlbur and Orville right made a test flight that didn't sustain self-powered flight, the world was totally justified in saying "Nope, sorry, that's not flying". And to say AI is "getting closer" is totally bogus. We have no idea that AI research is even going in the right direction, let alone getting closer to synthetic thinking. At least Wilbur and Orville were actually making progress.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never let someone who says it cannot be done interrupt the person who is doing it.