Microsoft is heading into the future now! Very interesting read just put out today.

tonyb

EndersShadow wrote: »

Lol yes @tonyb

I was referencing Sci-Fi there and making a joke

I know you were Dan, and how did that work out in sci-fi movies ? Almost every one the AI turns against it's human creators or gets a mind of it's own.

I find it fascinating how the human species always thrives to do better, to create better, invent things that will better our lives, yet....we have little desire to fix living together amongst ourselves.

I guess because there is no money and power to be had when people actually get along in harmony. No AI will fix that problem, and until we do, our fate is already written.

EndersShadow

tonyb wrote: »

I find it fascinating how the human species always thrives to do better, to create better, invent things that will better our lives, yet....we have little desire to fix living together amongst ourselves.

Thats because people are inherently bad and self serving. Survival instincts for us and our progeny are built into our DNA.

Which is why AI is bad. For every good thing it can do for us, there is at least a single if not multiple BAD THING it can do for us.

Heck I love the idea of connected devices, and even have one of them myself, but they also represent a risk as well (data mining, being hacked and recorded at all times, someone else controlling our networks/appliances, etc).

tonyb

EndersShadow wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

I find it fascinating how the human species always thrives to do better, to create better, invent things that will better our lives, yet....we have little desire to fix living together amongst ourselves.

Thats because people are inherently bad and self serving. Survival instincts for us and our progeny are built into our DNA.

Which is why AI is bad. For every good thing it can do for us, there is at least a single if not multiple BAD THING it can do for us.

Heck I love the idea of connected devices, and even have one of them myself, but they also represent a risk as well (data mining, being hacked and recorded at all times, someone else controlling our networks/appliances, etc).

....and that's just on the small scale we have today. Imagine when AI is given more control/dependency on ?

AI will only be a reflection of it's creators, and all their faults as well. Putting too much power in it's hands can only spell disaster. We tend to look past the negatives in favor of something new, life changing, money making inventions.

I'm not against advancing technologies, but it has to be done with care and concern with a view of the bigger picture. A weight scale of pros and cons. We have no such concerns today, only profit margins and market share spread sheets.

We haven't even touched on the military aspects of AI either. Talk about a disaster waiting in the wings. The military of any country will grab and use any technological advancement to their benefit/defense. Once in their hands, the corruption starts. Can't blame them for wanting the best AI available, but we circle back to evil men doing things with it that was never meant to happen. I don't think anyone can honestly say they trust government with all that power AI brings to the table. Right ?

tonyb

As an example today, with our limited AI in the computer world, it's already being used to control people. Think about Googles/Facebooks algorithms. They are already being used to sift through data/information, display or delete what is programmed into them, and spread the information or disinformation it's creators want.

Heck, even without the digital world, media alone does that, further exploiting why humans can't be trusted. The people we trust the least are the ones who will be programming future AI. Governments, big corporations, will only serve their own best interests, not necessarily yours. I can't tell anyone what measuring stick to use when deciding what AI is good or bad, depends on how much of your rights your willing to give up. We already have people in congress telling us we have no right to privacy, which is scary because they are setting you up for even more invasive AI.

The other side of the coin looks dismal too. With every advancement in AI, comes advancements in hacking also.

We live in a world now that is coercing everyone to put as much of their life and money in the public digital domain. A place where we are told have little rights to privacy and hackers cruise with ease. Seems to be a conflict of interests there to me.

Toolfan66

I can see AI making the human species an endangered species, granted we won’t be here to see it...

cfrizz

tonyb wrote: »

As an example today, with our limited AI in the computer world, it's already being used to control people. Think about Googles/Facebooks algorithms. They are already being used to sift through data/information, display or delete what is programmed into them, and spread the information or disinformation it's creators want.

Heck, even without the digital world, media alone does that, further exploiting why humans can't be trusted. The people we trust the least are the ones who will be programming future AI. Governments, big corporations, will only serve their own best interests, not necessarily yours. I can't tell anyone what measuring stick to use when deciding what AI is good or bad, depends on how much of your rights your willing to give up. We already have people in congress telling us we have no right to privacy, which is scary because they are setting you up for even more invasive AI.

The other side of the coin looks dismal too. With every advancement in AI, comes advancements in hacking also.

We live in a world now that is coercing everyone to put as much of their life and money in the public digital domain. A place where we are told have little rights to privacy and hackers cruise with ease. Seems to be a conflict of interests there to me.

This is where OUR common sense has to be applied. If you don't have any common sense, then I guess you are out of luck.

I have a cousin who refuses to be on FB because she doesn't want everyone to know her business. I have told her that SHE chooses what she put on FB, she can put as much or as little as she wants. If you just put the basics, and restrict it to Family and Friends, your posts are minimal with less chance of Govts or Corps sending you BS!

gudnoyez

Windows 7 on most machines in the house riding it out I absolutely can't stand 10.

rooftop59

gudnoyez wrote: »

Windows 7 on most machines in the house riding it out I absolutely can't stand 10.

Wrong thread?!?

gudnoyez

rooftop59 wrote: »

gudnoyez wrote: »

Windows 7 on most machines in the house riding it out I absolutely can't stand 10.

Wrong thread?!?

Oops my bad!

BlueFox

What I want is to automate flying aircraft. Keep one pilot in case of something catastrophic, and let the computer fly the plane.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

What I want is to automate flying aircraft. Keep one pilot in case of something catastrophic, and let the computer fly the plane.

Why ? How would that improve on anything ?

mhardy6647

The commercial aircraft today pretty much fly themselves most of the time, at least as I understand it. Maybe not takeoff, but landings are often automated (again, as I understand it).


It's good to have two in the flight crew, as one can haul the other one back in when one of the front windows shatters at altitude.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/world/asia/sichuan-airlines-pilot-window.html

BlueFox

tonyb wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

What I want is to automate flying aircraft. Keep one pilot in case of something catastrophic, and let the computer fly the plane.

Why ? How would that improve on anything ?

Human (pilot) error plays a role in many crashes. Computers react faster than people. If a computer had been flying the plane that did the water landing in the Hudson then it would have glided the plane back to the airport. The pilots spent so much time trying to figure out what to do they had no choice but to ditch the plane.

mhardy6647

BlueFox wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

What I want is to automate flying aircraft. Keep one pilot in case of something catastrophic, and let the computer fly the plane.

Why ? How would that improve on anything ?

Human (pilot) error plays a role in many crashes. Computers react faster than people. If a computer had been flying the plane that did the water landing in the Hudson then it would have glided the plane back to the airport. The pilots spent so much time trying to figure out what to do they had no choice but to ditch the plane.

Well, I don't know about that (the Hudson River scenario, that is), but fundamental physiology limits the response time of a human (any human) to about 0.1 seconds. This is very slow compared to what can be achieved with a machine.

In other words, there's no doubt that machines with a feedback loop between sensors and motor controls can respond much faster to a detected change, event or hazard. The value of fully automated/AI systems is going to boil down to the quality and performance of the software.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

What I want is to automate flying aircraft. Keep one pilot in case of something catastrophic, and let the computer fly the plane.

Why ? How would that improve on anything ?

Human (pilot) error plays a role in many crashes. Computers react faster than people. If a computer had been flying the plane that did the water landing in the Hudson then it would have glided the plane back to the airport. The pilots spent so much time trying to figure out what to do they had no choice but to ditch the plane.

....and it would have crashed if they tried to glide it back to the airport. Human activity saved those lives.

My GPS is run by a computer....it's constantly wrong.
My Phone is run by a computer....it too screws up.
Cars are run by computer, ask Tesla how that auto pilot is working out.
My computer, obviously run by a computer, fails, has errors, and needs rebooting on occasion.

Computers can also be hacked.....nuthin' like an aerial bomb with 100 or so people strapped to it to be made a statement out of by some nutjob.

Clipdat

True, there are standard computers running regular consumer OSes, but there are also companies that make custom OSes for "must work" situations, such as A&D applications.

tonyb wrote: »

My GPS is run by a computer....it's constantly wrong.
My Phone is run by a computer....it too screws up.
Cars are run by computer, ask Tesla how that auto pilot is working out.
My computer, obviously run by a computer, fails, has errors, and needs rebooting on occasion.

BlueFox

tonyb wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

What I want is to automate flying aircraft. Keep one pilot in case of something catastrophic, and let the computer fly the plane.

Why ? How would that improve on anything ?

Human (pilot) error plays a role in many crashes. Computers react faster than people. If a computer had been flying the plane that did the water landing in the Hudson then it would have glided the plane back to the airport. The pilots spent so much time trying to figure out what to do they had no choice but to ditch the plane.

....and it would have crashed if they tried to glide it back to the airport.

Wrong again. At least you are consistent.

Watch the movie, Sully, which gives a good overview of the incident. A computer would not take 35 seconds to make a decision. Maybe three-tenths of a second to gather all data, and determine the best flight path, glide angle, etc., back to the airport.

"Sully realizes that the Board believes the accident may have been pilot error, which would end his career. He arranges to have the simulations rerun with live pilots, and the results are relayed to the public hearing. Both simulations result in successful landings, one at each airport. Sully argues that they are unrealistic because the pilots knew in advance of the situation they would face and of the suggested emergency action, and were able to practice the scenario several times. The board accepts that in real life the pilots would have taken some time to react and run emergency checks before deciding to divert the plane.

Both simulations are rerun and relayed to the hearing, this time allowing a 35-second pause before the plane is diverted."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sully_(film)

mhardy6647

A&D?
Dang, I didn't realize that 1) that stuff was computerized & 2) that it was fault tolerant.

BlueFox

A bit more conversation on this subject.

http://time.com/4960778/computers-smarter-than-humans/

verb

It's amazing IMO how municipalities are opening their arms (and checkbooks) to enable autonomous vehicles. Look at all the instances of crashes (growing pains) that we're seeing or reading about.

I look at the Aircraft industry that is heavily regulated. Yeah I'm not a big fan of government intervention but from a safety perspective that is a good thing in my view.

All of the automakers are really self governed at this time. Government regulations are slow in the making. And reactionary. Yeah there is the fear of litigation every automaker has of course, but are we moving too fast?

We'll see!

txcoastal1

Collateral damage