Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
"AI" has recently turned into a gigantic blanket term.
You're not sitting in fron of a computer. You're now sitting in front
of "AI." :)
"AI" has recently turned into a gigantic blanket term.
More like a buzzword for non-technical management to throw around. Or
for marketdroids to sell a product to those same non-technical
management.
I don't understand how it's legal. If robots can drive cars, they need drivers >licenses. Otherwise, how can anybody say who can drive and who can't?
Automated, repetitious processes are one thing. AI is supposed to include a decision making element. Like the driverless cars you mentioned. They must be able to decide whether or not to stop at a red light, or before hitting a jaywalker. A simple automated process would just run the pedestrian over, while AI automation should stop until the unexpected obstacle has cleared its path.
I have an online form with an action page that checks to make sure that the form was filled out properly before accepting it. The action page makes decisions and acts accordingly. Of course this is not as useful as robot assassins, but I see no difference in the amount of "AI." Am I missing something?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-
I don't understand how it's legal. If robots can drive cars, they need drivers licenses. Otherwise, how can anybody say who can drive and who can't?
I don't understand how it's legal. If robots can drive cars, they need dr >licenses. Otherwise, how can anybody say who can drive and who can't?
Although I don't draw the same conclusion, that is an interesting point.
I have not researched it at all. I wonder if the companies that are running these automated vehicles need a special permit to do so?
I don't like the idea of self-driving cars, either. I would hope that at the very least the people who are monitoring the vehicles need some sort of certification and/or training to operate them.
If you are intereacting with Google at all these days, you are probably receiving an AI answer at the top of many of your results pages.
With a lot of business leaders, I do believe you are correct that it is a buzzword, though. Sort of like the initial "dot.com" boom and bust in
the late 1990s, a lot of company leaders are wanting to be on the AI train, even though I suspect that many/most of them don't really understand where the train might go.
As long as I **don't** get pulled over by the police, no one will know that I don't have a license. And it's only at that point I get
penalized for not having a license.
So in a sense, we can't tell anyone that they can/cannot drive. We can only control the flow of driver's licenses and heavily penalize those
who don't, drive and get caught (which is probably pretty small).
Something that the Left doesn't understand:
Most people obey the law because they believe that the law is correct. When Elitists make bad law, they breed contempt for the law and hurt society by causing people to not believe that the law is correct.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
But maybe I'm too extreme. I guess it's ok if one of them speeds a
little, or if it makes an illegal u-turn,
but it's not going to be ok
if it runs a stop sign or runs over a pedestrian. One death due to autonomous driven vehicles would be far too many to tolerate.
Google had this to say about it:f
"In some states, fully autonomous vehicles don't require a driver's license
they don't require human intervention. For example, in New Hampshire, a licensed driver is only required for testing."
That in itself doesn't seem fair, but to make things even more unfair, we're forced to drive among these death machines.
tI don't like the idea of self-driving cars, either. I would hope that
the very least the people who are monitoring the vehicles need some sort of certification and/or training to operate them.
Maybe it's something that could work safely for trains.
You and Ron have confirmed my suspicions about this being a big buzzword expedition. We should start selling AI t-shirts now before this fizzles like the Y2K doomsday thing.
if it runs a stop sign or runs over a pedestrian. One death due to autonomous driven vehicles would be far too many to tolerate.
But, sooner or later, self-driving cars will be a reality. But I will fight that as much as possible. Because that leads to anoter vector to control people that the Elitists will subvert.
You and Ron have confirmed my suspicions about this being a big buzzword expedition. We should start selling AI t-shirts now before this fizzles the Y2K doomsday thing.
I am not sure it will fizzle that much. I am hoping that business
leaders will realize that some AI might be good but also realize that taking too much "human intervention" out of the equation could lead to horrible, and even dystopian, results.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
The elitists are obsessed with electronics, and the Democrats have a
new hobby that's called "Make dangerous things even more dangerous."
And these two groups are ambiguous. So, it's rational to expect them to collude to make electronics as dangerous as possible (under the guise
of making them "as safe as possible.")
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 58:50:31 |
| Calls: | 65 |
| Files: | 21,500 |
| Messages: | 73,554 |