Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:War: the robots win (Score 1) 217

That's the exact opposite of a battlefield, which is not a known environment (act like it is and the enemy will use that assumption against you), there are a very large number of possible actions, and being predictable can quickly turn into being dead.

You're delusional. The poker robots already exceed expert human players in precisely calibrating their lack of predictability.

Beyond video games: New artificial intelligence beats tactical experts in combat simulation

Fighter jet AI consistently beats "Top Gun" tactical experts

The AI 'Top Gun' that can beat the military's best: Pilots hail 'aggresive and dynamic' software after losing to it repeatedly

In early iterations, ALPHA easily beat other AI opponents. Lee repeatedly attempted to score a kill against more mature versions of ALPHA. However, the artificial intelligence combat simulator shot Lee out of the air every time during protracted engagements. ALPHA has bested Lee and other field experts.

"I was surprised at how aware and reactive it was," said Lee. "It seemed to be aware of my intentions and reacting instantly to my changes in flight and my missile deployment. It knew how to defeat the shot I was taking. It moved instantly between defensive and offensive actions as needed."

Lee has trained with thousands of U.S. Air Force pilots, flown in several fighter aircraft and graduated from the U.S. Fighter Weapons School, yet when Lee flies against ALPHA in hours-long sessions that mimic real missions, "I go home feeling washed out. I'm tired, drained and mentally exhausted. This may be artificial intelligence, but it represents a real challenge."

Presently, combat AI is a saber-toothed tribble-tigger confined to a small box. That box is heading for puberty real darn soon.

Comment Re:War: the robots win (Score 1) 217

"Soldier", as a job, is going to be extremely hard to automate. A job is relatively easy to automate if it involves a known environment and restricted possible actions, and if the machine can be nice and predictable. That's the exact opposite of a battlefield, which is not a known environment (act like it is and the enemy will use that assumption against you), there are a very large number of possible actions, and being predictable can quickly turn into being dead.

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 1) 217

Exactly what do you mean by "dependence"? It would be depressing to have to constantly worry if some bureaucrat's decision was going to mess up my life if I did something a little bit wrong or unexpected. Having an assured income from any source would be much less of a problem. I know some people who are on Social Security disability and it doesn't control their lives or make them depressed. The same is true of the people on Social Security old age pensions: they know what's coming in, and it doesn't bother them.

The US welfare system is designed to kick people off welfare when given an excuse, so most people on it are insecure. (It also provides medical coverage that vanishes when someone leaves the system, meaning that many single parents simply can't afford to go from welfare to a low-paying job.) A UBI with medical coverage would be secure, and I don't think people would be depressed on it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by total helplessness in the face of a major devastating hurricane. That's the sort of thing that we have government for.

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 95

I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.

Jesus man, take your wife out once in a while, will you? She probably loves the fact that you can hire a babysitter and get a night out without the kids. At least that was my experience when my kid was young enough to need a babysitter.

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 95

You have to have 5 people watching the movie to get any value out of this service. Many theaters are less than that, around $8-9/ticket - now you have to bring over more than 6 people to get the value. I'm sure some people find comfort and possibly value in the possibility of sitting in their underwear while lounging and watching the latest movies

If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear, you're probably not paying that much attention to the movie.

Comment Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 1) 228

Insurance companies aren't liable for accidents in any case. If I cause an accident, I'm liable. It's my legal responsibility to pay what is required. It happens that I pay my insurance company a certain amount of money each month, and they will take care of the actual costs of the accident, but that's an arrangement I have with them. (I'm required to have such an arrangement, to guarantee that I can pay for a certain amount of damage I may be liable for.)

Insurance companies serve one main purpose: they accept financial risk on your behalf. They don't accept liability for you, but rather pay out to cover your liability. They can be useful in other ways: they can give you a good idea of what the expected cost of whatever risks you're running is, and they can handle all the details of who pays what.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 228

What happens when the 80-year-old lady wants to go somewhere in bad weather or under other unfavorable driving conditions? Does the car simply refuse to move? Or will it head out with an increased risk of accident? If the inclement weather causes an accident, who should then be at fault?

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.