Google has always played fast and loose with its AI claims, but today t has gone too far. In a WSJ story, Google is misleading people into thinking it has achieved emotion, if not outright consciousness, in its AI programming:
Google claims one of its computer programs using a database of movie scripts to answer questions supposedly "lashed out" at a human researcher who was repeatedly asking it to explain morality.
Don't computer scientists have a responsibility to deal forthrightly with the public on the real state of research in such fields as AI? When an Internet provider like Google makes such outlandish claims, one has to wonder what the real agenda is.
Because Google is an ISP, it seems to me a legitimate discussion point. Given Google's penchant for crafty customer surveillance, this technology seems like one that Google might try to leverage into a snoopy product. .
Because Google is an ISP, it seems to me a legitimate discussion
point. Given Google's penchant for crafty customer surveillance, this
technology seems like one that Google might try to leverage into a
snoopy product. .
if we wasted this list discussing things which *might* be leveraged into
a snoopy product we would be overwhelmed and the folk who actually
manage networks would go elsewhere.
try some other list, please. we're just trying to move packets.
Google has always played fast and loose with its AI claims, but today t has gone too far. In a WSJ story, Google is misleading people into thinking it has achieved emotion, if not outright consciousness, in its AI programming:
Google claims one of its computer programs using a database of movie scripts to answer questions supposedly "lashed out" at a human researcher who was repeatedly asking it to explain morality.
Is the WSJ a wholly owned subsidiary of GOOG? It looks to me like a WSJ journalist said that.
Don't computer scientists have a responsibility to deal forthrightly with the public on the real state of research in such fields as AI? When an Internet provider like Google makes such outlandish claims, one has to wonder what the real agenda is.
I think you're confusing computer scientist integrity with journalism and a desire to attract readers.
Is the WSJ a wholly owned subsidiary of GOOG? It looks to me like a WSJ
journalist said that.
If you read the paper, which is linked from the article and takes
about five minutes, you'll find that article is cheap clickbait and
has approximately nothing to do with the topic of the paper. As far
as I can tell, none of the people in the lengthy slashdot thread
bothered to do that.
ObNANOG: it's about a text chat app that can be loaded with various
text databases. The first couple of examples use a tech support
database and the examples are impressively close to the kind of tech
support one gets from offshore script readers.
The example quoted in the WSJ used a database of movie subtitles, so
it's not surprising that it reads like a bad movie script.