Face Recognition

Spiritual_Chaos

benjs said:

Jason P said:

AI is really going to screw things up.  Some prestigious and well paying professions that require advanced degrees are going to disappear overnight.

They’ll take longer than the less prestigious and less well-paying positions. This is why I say that ‘now’ is the right time to look into reskilling depending on the job an individual currently does. Some have more time than others, but those with more time before the major impact need all the time they have to reskill to a greater degree.

We shouldn’t blame AI for being natural progress - we should blame humans for thinking they can avoid natural progress and not require change. This is a new economic era, and just like every new economic era, it requires an appropriate approach.

I also think those with prestigious and well paying professions should get familiar with their tech teams now, and start to propose ways to leverage AI for the business’s benefit, and making that case for AI augmenting people tasks, rather than outright doing them.

AI isn't a natural progress - it is a manmade one. Just like shitting up our environment through the 20th century was not a natural progress - it is a manmade one. 

benjs

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Jason P said:

AI is really going to screw things up.  Some prestigious and well paying professions that require advanced degrees are going to disappear overnight.

They’ll take longer than the less prestigious and less well-paying positions. This is why I say that ‘now’ is the right time to look into reskilling depending on the job an individual currently does. Some have more time than others, but those with more time before the major impact need all the time they have to reskill to a greater degree.

We shouldn’t blame AI for being natural progress - we should blame humans for thinking they can avoid natural progress and not require change. This is a new economic era, and just like every new economic era, it requires an appropriate approach.

I also think those with prestigious and well paying professions should get familiar with their tech teams now, and start to propose ways to leverage AI for the business’s benefit, and making that case for AI augmenting people tasks, rather than outright doing them.

AI isn't a natural progress - it is a manmade one. Just like shitting up our environment through the 20th century was not a natural progress - it is a manmade one. 

At what point when you see man exhibit a behaviour consistently would you call it 'human nature' instead of 'manmade crisis'? Everything we do, we eventually destroy. You clearly have more faith in people than I do, that I'd say the desire to collect power and inevitable destruction that follows is as human as it gets. This is why I won't have kids. This is why I believe we deserve our extinction. 

Spiritual_Chaos

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Jason P said:

AI is really going to screw things up.  Some prestigious and well paying professions that require advanced degrees are going to disappear overnight.

They’ll take longer than the less prestigious and less well-paying positions. This is why I say that ‘now’ is the right time to look into reskilling depending on the job an individual currently does. Some have more time than others, but those with more time before the major impact need all the time they have to reskill to a greater degree.

We shouldn’t blame AI for being natural progress - we should blame humans for thinking they can avoid natural progress and not require change. This is a new economic era, and just like every new economic era, it requires an appropriate approach.

I also think those with prestigious and well paying professions should get familiar with their tech teams now, and start to propose ways to leverage AI for the business’s benefit, and making that case for AI augmenting people tasks, rather than outright doing them.

AI isn't a natural progress - it is a manmade one. Just like shitting up our environment through the 20th century was not a natural progress - it is a manmade one. 

At what point when you see man exhibit a behaviour consistently would you call it 'human nature' instead of 'manmade crisis'? Everything we do, we eventually destroy. You clearly have more faith in people than I do, that I'd say the desire to collect power and inevitable destruction that follows is as human as it gets. This is why I won't have kids. This is why I believe we deserve our extinction. 

I have zero faith in "man". It's 2019 and people still defend slaughtering and eating other living creatures and are voting in climate change deniers (Trump). I agree with you this will not end well. 

But I would not call it a natural progress. We have noclipped nature and instead of as a collective do good with that cheatcode, we do bad. 

tempo_n_groove

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Jason P said:

AI is really going to screw things up.  Some prestigious and well paying professions that require advanced degrees are going to disappear overnight.

They’ll take longer than the less prestigious and less well-paying positions. This is why I say that ‘now’ is the right time to look into reskilling depending on the job an individual currently does. Some have more time than others, but those with more time before the major impact need all the time they have to reskill to a greater degree.

We shouldn’t blame AI for being natural progress - we should blame humans for thinking they can avoid natural progress and not require change. This is a new economic era, and just like every new economic era, it requires an appropriate approach.

I also think those with prestigious and well paying professions should get familiar with their tech teams now, and start to propose ways to leverage AI for the business’s benefit, and making that case for AI augmenting people tasks, rather than outright doing them.

AI isn't a natural progress - it is a manmade one. Just like shitting up our environment through the 20th century was not a natural progress - it is a manmade one. 

At what point when you see man exhibit a behaviour consistently would you call it 'human nature' instead of 'manmade crisis'? Everything we do, we eventually destroy. You clearly have more faith in people than I do, that I'd say the desire to collect power and inevitable destruction that follows is as human as it gets. This is why I won't have kids. This is why I believe we deserve our extinction. 

So true.

I like to fish and when they are too small or not legal size I throw them back.  I've been with other "persons" that say "why are u throwing that back? eat it, no one will know"

When there are "persons" like that out there they will just use up every natural resource we have and not care about the future.

lastexitlondon

I like to fish also but we put all fish back here. And i still think im doing wrong.

Halifax2TheMax

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

They want to get rid of people for profit. So I always go to the manned lines. 

#supportyourlocalcashier

Every business exists to generate as much profit as possible. Every business will eventually be forced to keep up with the new efficiencies their competitors have through automation, or promote their humanness as a strategy to make up for their disadvantaged position.

The government needs to work on skilling for the needs of tomorrow. As a businessman, it’s not my responsibility to cease progress because of the government’s ineptitude to recognize that need. The days of paying people for physical strength are going away quickly, and by introducing efficiencies through automation, we can focus on paying for people for their brains rather than their hands.

Walmart needs more profit? Where’s the ethics in that? If the Walton family reinvested some of that profit in their employees or paid their fare share of taxes, I could get with you on “efficiencies” but when all the gains of efficiency just trickle to the top, there’s a problem. And not everyone can work with their brain. 

Walmart doesn’t need more profit, but they’re entitled to it. When did the US start to represent ‘capitalism until the public decides you have too much’? If this is determined to be the direction the country wants, go for it, get it passed as law, but otherwise, it’s unrealistic to expect ethics beyond what is legally mandated from businesses.

And H2TM, I’m extremely sorry to say this, but we will all likely be replaced by AI in some way, shape or form (unless we’re fortunate/clever enough to involve ourselves in being AI operations) - but the ‘hand’ work is easier to automate and thus will go first. This is the logical progression the world is showing itself to be on already. The pursuit of those efficiencies is happening today, so we can debate back and forth whether it’s ethical, or we can talk about what should be done since it’s already happening today.

It’s also worth mentioning that there aren’t just savings being shown with AI - there are tangible service improvements because AI doesn’t show up hungover, AI doesn’t hate its minimum wage job and sabotage performance, coaching AI has reliable results, AI follows clear instructions reliably, etc. I happened to be watching Walmart Labs (Walmart’s AI division) speak at a conference a few weeks ago and left very confident that this is actually their number one rationale for pursuing better tech (and as the guy who runs our tech program, I can tell you that’s ours as well).

Next, ‘paid their fare share of taxes’ - this must be your definition of ‘fair’ as opposed to the legal one. Is this arbitrary or do you have a logically founded definition for this?

Finally, on the ‘what the family should do with their profit’ - that’s their business, not yours or mine. I personally believe that a happy and well compensated group of employees are far more likely to be productive and profitable than the opposite, but it’s not my right to assert what should be done with Walmart’s profit.

I owe you a response to this and will reply in kind but I totally forgot what thread we had this exchange in despite me mulling my response. Some of us are shorter for this world. Again, my apologies.

benjs

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

They want to get rid of people for profit. So I always go to the manned lines. 

#supportyourlocalcashier

Every business exists to generate as much profit as possible. Every business will eventually be forced to keep up with the new efficiencies their competitors have through automation, or promote their humanness as a strategy to make up for their disadvantaged position.

The government needs to work on skilling for the needs of tomorrow. As a businessman, it’s not my responsibility to cease progress because of the government’s ineptitude to recognize that need. The days of paying people for physical strength are going away quickly, and by introducing efficiencies through automation, we can focus on paying for people for their brains rather than their hands.

Walmart needs more profit? Where’s the ethics in that? If the Walton family reinvested some of that profit in their employees or paid their fare share of taxes, I could get with you on “efficiencies” but when all the gains of efficiency just trickle to the top, there’s a problem. And not everyone can work with their brain. 

Walmart doesn’t need more profit, but they’re entitled to it. When did the US start to represent ‘capitalism until the public decides you have too much’? If this is determined to be the direction the country wants, go for it, get it passed as law, but otherwise, it’s unrealistic to expect ethics beyond what is legally mandated from businesses.

And H2TM, I’m extremely sorry to say this, but we will all likely be replaced by AI in some way, shape or form (unless we’re fortunate/clever enough to involve ourselves in being AI operations) - but the ‘hand’ work is easier to automate and thus will go first. This is the logical progression the world is showing itself to be on already. The pursuit of those efficiencies is happening today, so we can debate back and forth whether it’s ethical, or we can talk about what should be done since it’s already happening today.

It’s also worth mentioning that there aren’t just savings being shown with AI - there are tangible service improvements because AI doesn’t show up hungover, AI doesn’t hate its minimum wage job and sabotage performance, coaching AI has reliable results, AI follows clear instructions reliably, etc. I happened to be watching Walmart Labs (Walmart’s AI division) speak at a conference a few weeks ago and left very confident that this is actually their number one rationale for pursuing better tech (and as the guy who runs our tech program, I can tell you that’s ours as well).

Next, ‘paid their fare share of taxes’ - this must be your definition of ‘fair’ as opposed to the legal one. Is this arbitrary or do you have a logically founded definition for this?

Finally, on the ‘what the family should do with their profit’ - that’s their business, not yours or mine. I personally believe that a happy and well compensated group of employees are far more likely to be productive and profitable than the opposite, but it’s not my right to assert what should be done with Walmart’s profit.

I owe you a response to this and will reply in kind but I totally forgot what thread we had this exchange in despite me mulling my response. Some of us are shorter for this world. Again, my apologies.

No apologies necessary, life gets busy! Thanks for posting this.

brianlux

California's governor Gavin Newsom (a politician I have some big issues with, but that's another story) signed legislation make it illegal to distribute "deepfakes" of politicians- A.I. doctored videos the alter real footage- 60 days before an election. 

OK, but how sure are we they can be detected?  What about false images before the 60 period?  What is real anyway, and what isn't?  Do we really know?  Even further out there- is this the first step to an A.I. controlled society?  

A fairly brief article worth the time to check out:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/07/california-makes-deepfake-videos-illegal-but-law-may-be-hard-to-enforce

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

California's governor Gavin Newsom (a politician I have some big issues with, but that's another story) signed legislation make it illegal to distribute "deepfakes" of politicians- A.I. doctored videos the alter real footage- 60 days before an election. 

OK, but how sure are we they can be detected?  What about false images before the 60 period?  What is real anyway, and what isn't?  Do we really know?  Even further out there- is this the first step to an A.I. controlled society?  

A fairly brief article worth the time to check out:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/07/california-makes-deepfake-videos-illegal-but-law-may-be-hard-to-enforce

TY Brian.

ANY AI that results in trying to sway someone politically through a false means should be illegal!

I can't believe that "Wagging The Dog" is becoming a real thing.

Unbelievable... 

herogroundzero

Autonomous killer drones
The future is a scary thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK6IGG5zRU8

Jason P

A stalker in Japan was arrested and admitted he used reflections in the iris of selfies posted by the victim and somehow used Google Street to figure out where they lived.