July 24, 2015 at 4:21 pm
Eric M Russell (7/24/2015)
rclark-1124819 (7/24/2015)
if I didn't drop a zero somewhere, the 7 billion in population would fit into the state of Colorado if we all lived in the density of the country of Macau S.A.R.And that is only the second densest society we know about. The first was the Japanese Mining Colony of Hashima that had 3 times that density until 1974.
Imagine 7 billion people packed into a mining colony the size of Colorado ...
... And the world will live as one
... la la laaaa
Ugh, no. Not for me.
Could. Should. Desire to. Lots of separation in these terms.
July 24, 2015 at 4:22 pm
GeorgeCopeland (7/24/2015)
Improved efficiency by definition makes more resources available. What you do with those resources is a business problem, not a technical one.
Or a societal one, but very true.
July 24, 2015 at 4:24 pm
seseite (7/24/2015)
Efficiency doesn't make customer service better, it destroys it. The more we depend on machines, the less we depend on our human abilities. We get lazy and dummer as we let the machines do it. I have dealt with three customer service nightmares in the last six weeks. All based on over dependence on technology. In each case, a breakdown in training led to an oversight and a bad customer experience. Looking at how the situations were handled, it is guaranteed that they won't put more personnel or better training in place. They will look for more technology as the solution. Look at the driveless car as the standard solution to every problem.
Sweeping generalization in your first statement. I'd say I've had some great CS advancements with well designed systems. United knows I'm calling, they know what reservation I'm likely calling about, they let me route to a human if I need to. It's a very, very efficient and useful system. It has made CS much, much better.
The breakdown in training isn't a technology or efficiency problem. That's a process problem or a cost cutting measure.
BTW, I want a driverless car. However I know it's a long way away, and there are significant hurdles, technical and non-technical.
July 27, 2015 at 7:38 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/24/2015)
Eric M Russell (7/24/2015)
rclark-1124819 (7/24/2015)
if I didn't drop a zero somewhere, the 7 billion in population would fit into the state of Colorado if we all lived in the density of the country of Macau S.A.R.And that is only the second densest society we know about. The first was the Japanese Mining Colony of Hashima that had 3 times that density until 1974.
Imagine 7 billion people packed into a mining colony the size of Colorado ...
... And the world will live as one
... la la laaaa
Ugh, no. Not for me.
Could. Should. Desire to. Lots of separation in these terms.
Yeah, I know. Given the prevlance of sarcasm in online discussion forums, it's way past time it got it's own emoticon.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
July 27, 2015 at 7:56 am
Aaron N. Cutshall (7/24/2015)
I know that there is a lot of concern and even some fear about the capabilities of AI, however I don't think that we have to worry about it for a very, very long time if at all. Even the most sophisticated AI currently employed requires massive computing capability and teams of developers employing heuristic algorithms, complex data structures, and very clever programming just to SIMULATE a minute portion of intelligence. And yet, with all that, most AI systems are not as intuitive as an ant when it comes to problem solving, dealing with new situations, and learning. And an ant didn't need a human programmer!Don't get me wrong. I do enjoy the effort of AI research and love the sci-fi books and movies that result from it all. In the end, I do believe that it's all worth it because in the process of trying to make computers more human-compatible, we learn even much more about ourselves.
Have you seen what they are doing with bees in airport security screening? They put them in little cages and when they get a single molecule of the targeted substance, they start drooling. That in turn breaks a light beam, and that sets off an alarm. With their inherent size, the can pack a lot of sensors into a very small space, giving them lots of discrimination on what they are looking for.
Were I to imagine the most advanced AI, I would think massive computing power (we already have that in small packages), some of the cutting edge biosensors, and some of the cutting edge controllers, and you would have something that could function as an intelligence and react at the speeds we expect from a living intelligence. The only drawback is the moral ones. You can't teach morality to software. But you can make those decisions in advance and encode them. The problem will be living with the moral choices when "We don't negotiate with Terrorists" is activated in real time.
July 27, 2015 at 1:33 pm
GeorgeCopeland (7/24/2015)
jckfla (7/24/2015)
It's like with Windows 8, 8.1, and 10. They want me to have a touchscreen PC. Why would I want to move my hand all the way up to the monitor from the keyboard and mouse that are located in closer proximity to me? Then move them back to the keyboard to type? Why pay more for a monitor with touch-capability when I don't need it? Or pay more for a laptop with touch when I don't need it and have no use for it??Dang kids! In my day, we didn't have these pretty pichers and icons, all we had was binary! And we didn't even have zeros, we had ohs! I once wrote an entire operating system in ones and ohs! And we liked it!
You must have missed the identical griping when Micro$oft told everyone that they had to buy a mouse back in 1993, then a CD drive in 2000. MS was right back then, I am pretty sure they are right today.
Absolutely!
-- posted using Microsoft Bob
July 28, 2015 at 7:28 am
Maybe in a thousand years.
July 28, 2015 at 11:12 am
seseite (7/24/2015)
... I have dealt with three customer service nightmares in the last six weeks. ...
I'm guessing you're an AT&T or Comcast customer? 😛
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
July 28, 2015 at 11:18 am
GeorgeCopeland (7/24/2015)
jckfla (7/24/2015)
It's like with Windows 8, 8.1, and 10. They want me to have a touchscreen PC. Why would I want to move my hand all the way up to the monitor from the keyboard and mouse that are located in closer proximity to me? Then move them back to the keyboard to type? Why pay more for a monitor with touch-capability when I don't need it? Or pay more for a laptop with touch when I don't need it and have no use for it??Dang kids! In my day, we didn't have these pretty pichers and icons, all we had was binary! And we didn't even have zeros, we had ohs! I once wrote an entire operating system in ones and ohs! And we liked it!
You must have missed the identical griping when Micro$oft told everyone that they had to buy a mouse back in 1993, then a CD drive in 2000. MS was right back then, I am pretty sure they are right today.
(Sorry for the late reply...Dad's been in the hospital...)
Actually...I have been around PCs since the 1980s...early 1980s. Programmed PL/1, Fortran 77, COBOL 74 and 85, RPG (I, II and III), etc. etc. Programmed Hex...never did Binary tho. 😛
I didn't miss anything. After 20 years using a mouse, I still suck at it...basically because my hands are too big for anything an employer will pay for and I'm not bringing my $70 mouse to work.
I didn't complain about CD drives. I liked the idea of them, because magnets didn't erase the discs by accident. :laugh:
BTW...Microsoft wasn't right because they implemented technology. And if I remember right, Apple implemented the use of a mouse on a PC *long* before Microsoft. Remember the Apple Lisa? The Mac? Circa 1983?
As for optical disc drives, I saw those in use in my father's agency at the US Government. CD drives weren't unused before Microsoft decided to integrate drivers for them. They were just too expensive for the general public.
As for being right today...I'd offer an opinion that differs...at least, where a PC is concerned.
Ergonomically, moving your arms and hands back and forth from a keyboard and mouse to do touchscreen and back down will cause even more extensive repetitive motion injuries/stresses for workers. That means less productive workplaces. I don't see corporations going for that.
Efficiency wise, it is a waste too. Both from a workplace aspect, as well as people such as gamers. The consistency of accuracy of a mouse versus that of touchscreen for placement/targeting is immeasurably worlds apart. Plus the movement back and forth wastes time.
Also as I said, why would an employer, home user, or gamer want to dump $200+ for a touch monitor when that can far improve overall system performance?
I give it to you that touchscreen is a great interface method for the mobile market. But IMHO, that's where touch should remain: mobile devices.
However, to push that on the PC market is foolish. It makes no logical sense.
And as many people have already stated in many articles from many tech sites and publications, Microsoft going mobile-focused is an uphill battle when iOS and Android have such efficient, well-established interfaces.
I think Nadella is a much better businessman, but as I said before: I hope he doesn't put all his eggs in one basket...or it could mean Microsoft ends up like Gateway.
July 28, 2015 at 11:32 am
Iwas Bornready (7/28/2015)
Maybe in a thousand years.
If the AI robots are designed to think like humans, then hopefully they will turn on each other, killing themselves off in a perpetual turf war, before they get around to attacking us.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
July 28, 2015 at 11:39 am
Eric M Russell (7/28/2015)
Iwas Bornready (7/28/2015)
Maybe in a thousand years.If the AI robots are designed to think like humans, then hopefully they will turn on each other, killing themselves off in a perpetual turf war, before they get around to attacking us.
If they think like humans, we're safe. 😀
Robots thinking like humans is AI? No comments! 😎
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
July 28, 2015 at 11:47 am
People who grew up using iPads will think that an unresponsive laptop screen is just brain dead stupid. They're right.
July 28, 2015 at 11:49 am
Alvin Ramard (7/28/2015)
Eric M Russell (7/28/2015)
Iwas Bornready (7/28/2015)
Maybe in a thousand years.If the AI robots are designed to think like humans, then hopefully they will turn on each other, killing themselves off in a perpetual turf war, before they get around to attacking us.
If they think like humans, we're safe. 😀
Robots thinking like humans is AI? No comments! 😎
Yes, that's why I said the other day that an AI that mimics the intelligence of an ant or bee hive and focuses on a specialized set of tasks would have more practical applications than an AI that's essentially just a fast thinking human with a Google connection. Make it too human, and it will be limited by it's human traits.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
July 28, 2015 at 12:12 pm
Eric M Russell (7/28/2015)
Alvin Ramard (7/28/2015)
Eric M Russell (7/28/2015)
Iwas Bornready (7/28/2015)
Maybe in a thousand years.If the AI robots are designed to think like humans, then hopefully they will turn on each other, killing themselves off in a perpetual turf war, before they get around to attacking us.
If they think like humans, we're safe. 😀
Robots thinking like humans is AI? No comments! 😎
Yes, that's why I said the other day that an AI that mimics the intelligence of an ant or bee hive and focuses on a specialized set of tasks would have more practical applications than an AI that's essentially just a fast thinking human with a Google connection. Make it too human, and it will be limited by it's human traits.
A skynet-like incident doesn't even really require the robots to be truly intelligent. We already have the ability to be systems that can respond on their own to outside stimulus (think driverless cars); adapt that model of thinking to a WEAPON system and you can get a whole lot of mayhem without ever needing "true AI". The AEGIS system today auto-adjusts with no input from the user. If it were on fully automated mode, and somehow everyone on board died suddenly, you wouldn't be able to get a plane within several hundred miles of it. There have been adaptation of similar systems on vehicles (to react automatically to incoming fire etc...), so it no longer requires a destroyer-sized vehicle to implement.
Sure - the fully automated factory is a few years off, but even that is possible. All that stands between us and a fairly major problem is that no one has been foolish enough to chain all of the pieces together (fully automated factory with autonomous machines with destructive potential)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
July 28, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Matt Miller (#4) (7/28/2015)
Sure - the fully automated factory is a few years off, but even that is possible. All that stands between us and a fairly major problem is that no one has been foolish enough to chain all of the pieces together (fully automated factory with autonomous machines with destructive potential)
I was in Dresden a month ago and got a tour of a Volkswagen factory where they do final assembly of Phaetons and Bentleys. There are four robots in the entire plant: one applies the VIN, I believe one removes the glass and doors which are put back on at the end of assembly, I don't recall what the other two do. The cars arrive as a bare (but painted) body and a drive train/frame, then the two are put together (the event when the body is bound to the frame is called 'The Wedding').
Most everything is done by workers using manual or electric tools -- no noisy pneumatics. The cars are on lifts that the person at each assembly point can adjust to minimize RSI, a lift is used to place the batteries in the cars, etc.
Robotics certainly have their place especially in repetitive or hazardous jobs, but I recently came across a dialog allegedly between Henry Ford II and the head of the Teamsters. Ford said, showing off all the robots, "How are you going to collect union dues from them?" The Teamster said "How are you going to sell cars to them?" What I find more scary for a near-future problem is automation and robotics eliminating jobs while social safety nets continue to be destroyed and unemployment starts climbing again.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 68 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply