don't call it "AI".
It's computer algos, that's it.
It's all bullshit.
and if this AI nonsense would actually be intelligence, then you wouldn't have to train it for years to drive a car.
What's even worse is the silly "machine learning", where people write an algo, do not even fully understand wtf they are doing, and when something fails, they can't fix it, but rather put either more data on top and hope for the best, or go back to an earlier state. That's pure nonsense from a programming state, but it explains a lot why the computer industry is as bad as it is. "That'll do".
What's worse is that this shit is used for driving cars, not autonomous, but over the internet. What happens when that algo fails in certain situations?
Will all cars get stopped until a new patch is out?
What's the plan here?
And no, one human making a mistake is one human and one incident, not every human will make the same mistake, despite going through the same "car driving school", "programming" in your technocratic world view.
>I've never seen a soul.
In your technocratic world view nothing exists unless you can "measure it" with silly tools.
Trust the experts.
Trust the tools.
>It's all data processing.
It's not.
>You do what you've been programmed to do based on the available data.
Bullshit, I CREATE from nothing, from an idea in my mind.
>How long did it take humans to learn to drive cars?
Humans are learning that pretty fast. You can get someone to drive a car within no time.
>And even after all this time humans still fuck up and get into horrific accidents.
Driving a car in a chaotic world is what humans actually can do pretty well considering how many humans are driving cars and how chaotic the world is.
What are humans good at?
Handling chaos. The world is chaotic.
What are computers good at?
Doing the same shit over and over. They are not good at handling chaos.
How many times did you fail to recognize your friends of parents?
How often does face recognition algos fail?
>Everything is data.
No.
>Nothing comes from nothing. You need basis for the idea to form and materials (if physical) to build said thing.
That makes no sense.
A computer algo comes from the programmer.
So it's not a computer doing something, it just does what it was told to do.
So if you follow that thought of yours, nothing should exist in this world, because "humans are just like computers, and need input and programs". See, you don't make sense.
>No, I'm human.
I doubt it.
>Because we got the collective knowledge of all the humans before us
That makes no sense when you think about it.
>So why do you expect AI to fare any better?
It doesn't, I expect it to do worse, that's why that shit takes so long and will not work.
I will explain why.
Let's take a taxi driver. A taxi driver is a human.
The taxi driver doesn't just drive a taxi.
A taxi driver sees smoke coming from a building, sees a police officer on the street. He will ask the police officer what's going on and use a different route depending on what has happened. A taxi driver thus can react to chaos.
Or let's say you drive with taxi. You have a heart attack. The taxi driver has first aid knowledge and can help you on the spot.
Now tell me, what will your remote driven car do in such a situation?
Nothing. At best it may drive you to a hospital, and you will probably die on the way.
>Yeah I can see all the normies handling the chaos really well.
The world is chaotic all the time, it seems you have no clue what you are talking about.
I'm actually a software developer, so I see what computers can do and what computers excel.
>Not once.
Well duh
>Your point being?
Are you a bot? It seems you can't think like a human. My point was obvious.
>How so? Did you come from your parents? Is it you doing something or what your parents told you to do?
I'm not my parents and I choose what to do. No one else.
>that a lot of those programmers don't even understand what they are doing.
That was actually me and the problem with your shitty "machine learning" crap.
Tell me, why would you expect a company like Google to manage to create remote driven cars (self driving is marketing PR bullshit) when they can't even make a simple web browser without errors?
Can't you give your "AI" all RFCs and let it create the perfect error free web browser?
Why not?
Is it not AI?
>Not even remotely close
It actually is.
If it's all programming from "parents", where does it originate from, when "humans are totally computers"?
Where do new inventions come from? Magic? Aliens?
>Never heard of books?
You make even less sense now.
-
How did these humans know to read these books?
-
where did all these magic fairy books come from?
See, your arguments are the arguments of a bot.
>Same with AI.
So you admit that remote driven cars (taxis) are incredibly complicated to do even closely like a human taxi driver, who is cheap.
Isn't it weird that this marketing PR bullshit gets pushed for 20 years now with nothing to show off?
Because it's a psy-op to make taxi drivers fear for their jobs.
And why would someone not go for automating trains, which would be way less complicated?
Why also not automate retardo jobs like bankers, doctors, attorneys and other shit, who are just following strict protocol?
>But AIs are specialized.
No, it's bullshit. It's marketing speak for computer ALGOs.
Just like internet servers are nowadays called "cloud".
>Are you?
Yes.
>And likewise the computer is not the programmer.
Computers do exactly what they were told and nothing else.
If they don't, then it's probably because you made a mistake or a faulty CPU.
If you program a computer to kill another human, you would be liable for murder, not the computer.
>And how do you go about choosing that?
Because my father is dead, and I had no contact to my mother for 25 years now.
>I'm no fan of AI or machine learning.
You aren't? You have a technocratic world view, which is a retarded world view.
Humans are not body parts either.
And humans are not the same.
For a technocrat it's all just body parts, machines and every human is the same as any other human.
>Humans aren't error free, why does the AI have to be to be a "real" AI?
BECAUSE you fucking retard, a computer program that is used everywhere to drive shitty cars will make the same mistake everywhere and thus one single error has an insane amount of consequences.
If you were a software developer, you would know this.
One nurse may take wrong medication once and that can have fatal consequences.
One pill machine will make the same mistake over and over until it's corrected, which WILL have really fatal consequences, way worse than what a few nurses can do and thus the pill machine would have to do a way better job than the average nurse, because the average nurse doesn't fuck up that often.
>Why also not automate retardo jobs like bankers, doctors, attorneys and other shit, who are just following strict protocol?
CEOs!
> and thus the pill machine would have to do a way better job than the average nurse
and even this argument "oh that'll do, it's better than x" is pure nonsense.
A computer should do a perfect job.
Even starting with "it doesn't have to work properly all the time" shows how idiotic the ones behind this shit actually are.
"Oh, our AI just kills a few people each year, it's okay you see, becuase it's better than the statistics from 1995"
>They were taught.
By whom?
>I know what you're saying; It had to start somewhere.
Well duh
>Curiosity and creativity is fairly new to AI, but not impossible.
There is no creativity. It's just stupid algos.
It's at best the creativity of the developer, at worst it's just random nonsense.
Everything can be art, so you can use random shit and call it art, which is pointless.
>how should we be able to simulate them in a foreign system?
Why?
And for what?
>Because the PR promises perfection. That is not possible.
It's not?
Why is that?
The programs that I write are perfect for the most part, because I use a proper programming language for these.
If you admit that it doesn't really work, why do it in the first place?
You admit to failure and then follow up with "that's ok". it's not.
>Automated trains are fairly common. (pic related)
They aren't.
And most goods are transported using trucks, not on train.
>Because, those people have the means to be replaced.
It would actually make the most sense to replace these retards, than taxi drivers and once again it would be easier.
>AI = Algos.
Algos are not AI.
>hence we don't recognize them as actors with agency.
They have no agency of themselves.
>Does an AI need to have the programmer living beside them to follow their code?
You are not making sense.
I hate my mother and I would and have never done what she wanted me to do.
>No I don't. And yes it is.
You do have a technocratic world view.
>Unless the learning algorithm can error correct based on an internal score.
Bullshitting.
>I made it even more complicated, now it's better than before.
Less code is actually better.
>learning algo
Stop with the AI bullshit talk.
>She'll never do that again. Kek.
Actually it happens, but why does it happen?
Because tons of stress involved at the job. Can't concentrate on one thing.
And what do you do?
Automate this part, so that there is one more tech retard and a few less nurses once again.
That's why I'm against automating all this crap, and would instead get more nurses for a better result.
>How are you going to correct a mistake you make if you are never made aware of it being a mistake?
People at hospitals will figure out that something is wrong, at least when patients die.
>Where as automation is as you put it, hit record and play back.
More bullshit.
I created order picking software, which uses a system that detects which packages went through it, and most packages even contain a barcode on them.
Depending on what went through, the data is transferred and the items that went into their containers will get booked.
That's automation, not playback at all.
Does this package detection work properly?
No, despite barcode, despite fixed packages.
It may work 95% or even 99%, but that's still pretty bad and causes tons of additional manual HUMAN work.
Packages with barcode should in theory work 100%, but they don't.