×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

JoeDuncan Re:AI is not just a look-up program. (417 comments)

No, I'm not wrong, and just the fact that I, someone actually researching AI...

You realize you just contradicted yourself right? If your definition of AI is correct, then what you are researching doesn't count as AI because it doesn't exist yet, therefore you are NOT an AI researcher, and there is no "AI field" because there's no AI to study.

At best that would make you a proto- or pseudo- AI researcher.

On the other hand, if my definition is correct, then you can actually be called an AI researcher, but doing so proves my initial point. Just the fact that you call yourself an AI researcher belies the fact that you don't even have the conviction of your own beliefs.

I will agree there are a small number of people who research AI - but only consider "strong AI" to be true AI - however they're a pretty small minority and they qualify what they mean by stressing the true or strong bit in order not to confuse the other AI researchers as to what they're talking about.

P.S. did you have any posters, papers or talks at AAAI 2014? Perhaps I saw some of your stuff. What area are you working on?

about two weeks ago
top

AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

JoeDuncan Re:Moot argument (417 comments)

LOL - true

about two weeks ago
top

AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

JoeDuncan Re:AI is not just a look-up program. (417 comments)

Well, no, they don't, but I'll agree that some do.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. I was at the AAAI conference this year, and there were thousands of AI researchers there working on some pretty amazing stuff, but not one of the people I talked to was like "oh, yeah, we're not doing *real* AI, we're just faking it"

Whether you like it or not, things like neural networks, genetic algorithms, deep learning, data mining, decision trees, fuzzy logic etc... are ALL real AI. Simply because it doesn't fit your Hollywood and TV induced concept of what AI is, doesn't make them any less AI. To call them something else would be asinine, and basically amounts to telling a whole field of research that they aren't doing what they think they're doing. Do you also think that cars explode on impact?

What you are talking about is called "strong AI" or "artificial general intelligence" (AGI) - which is an entire subfield of AI.

You're the kind of person that would tell a pilot that they're not REALLY flying because they're strapped into a vehicle, and not outside in the air buck naked and flapping their arms, aren't you?

about two weeks ago
top

AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

JoeDuncan Re:AI is not just a look-up program. (417 comments)

Only by AI researchers.

Not true. While I disagree with your "ask a human on the street" approach, if you DID ask a human on the street whether Deep Blue or Watson were AI, they would say "yes" because they've been reported in the media as being so.

about two weeks ago
top

AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

JoeDuncan Re:Totally harmless (417 comments)

UX expert: this new look won't scare users away, it'll let us serve more ads

Those are the same thing.

about two weeks ago
top

AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

JoeDuncan Re:AI is not just a look-up program. (417 comments)

If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application.

The entire field of AI disagrees with you.
What you really mean is it's not AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) if it isn't self-aware.
AI is already here, and it's all around us: in your washing machine, in your dishwasher, in longshoreman cranes, in your car, in Google, in Facebook etc...
Both Deep Blue and Watson were essentially "just a look-up program" yet they are considered actual AI, just not the self-aware, generally intelligent kind.

about two weeks ago
top

CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

JoeDuncan Shocking... (769 comments)

I, for one, am *shocked*. The CIA *lied*?!?

Shocked, I tell you.

about two weeks ago
top

A Better Way To Make Mind-Controlled Prosthetic Limbs

JoeDuncan Re:Not too invasive? (28 comments)

The difference being that the ECoG system appears to simply lay the electrode mesh on top of your cortex, traditional direct neural links involve actually puncturing and penetrating neural tissue with many tiny pins.

about 4 months ago
top

FBI: $10,000 Reward For Info On Anyone Who Points a Laser At an Aircraft

JoeDuncan I don't know what goes here, and it wouldn't tell (445 comments)

Unless we're somehow going to regulate laser pointers like guns, it would be far more effective
LOL - yeah, because "gun regulation" in the US has proven *SO* effective at reducing gun crimes! Training an army of ninja squirrels to steal laser pointers from kids would be cheaper and more effective...

about 10 months ago
top

How To Better Verify Scientific Research

JoeDuncan Re:So now we're all skeptics... (197 comments)

It's all THREE???

Wow. Just... wow. I had no idea.

ALL climatologists are idiots who don't know about the scientific method, the whole thing is being covered up by some pseudo-religious apocalyptic cult AND "Big Green" has more money than "Big Oil"?

Jesus H. Christ! We have to do something! We have to tell someone! This is scary HUGE!!!

Why hasn't this gotten out yet? Who's got a stranglehold on this? We need to stop them ASAP.

Wait, what was that click, are they listening to this?

Nevermind, I have NO idea what you're talking about, this AGW thing is *totes* real! (*wink* *wink*)

about a year ago
top

How To Better Verify Scientific Research

JoeDuncan Re:So now we're all skeptics... (197 comments)

Ok, I give. You've clearly got this all figured out, climatology is obviously pseudoscience.

I'm curious though, since you've got better reasoning skills and insight than all the climatologists, how did they do it?

How did they get all the climatologists to think they're doing science when they're not, and to come to the consensus that AGW is real? I mean manipulating an entire field of academia is some pretty scary, nex level shit.

Are all climatologists just idiots? Is it some kind of conspiracy? Is it because "Big Green" is simply out-spending "Big Oil" to buy scientists' favour?

You have to help me out here, without your brilliant insights and superior reasoning, I don't think I'll be able to figure it out on my own - and I need to know! The uncertainty is frightening.

about a year ago
top

How To Better Verify Scientific Research

JoeDuncan Re:So now we're all skeptics... (197 comments)

Oh man, shit shit shit. They got to you! How did they get to you? This is bad, very bad...

Think man! THINK! Shake it off. Gravity was already falsified by Einstein, those predictions fail on relativistic scale! Of course, instead of admitting that gravity was wrong, the left-wing "Gravitationist" establishment simply came up with a bunch of excuses as to why their predictions failed, and then changed their theory to match the data!

It's the same thing they're doing with AGW and astrology. Don't buy it man, snap out of it! They don't give a crap about truth, just pushing the "Gravitationist" agenda.

Hold tight man, you've opened my eyes, so I owe you one, I won't sit by and see you brainwashed by "them". I'll find you, I don't know how - but I will, and we'll get you the help you need, I just hope it's not too late.

Oh, crap! There's someone at the door! I think they've found me too! How did they get here so quick? Just hang on, don't give up, we're coming for you brother, we'll get you out of there! Gotta disappear now...

about a year ago
top

How To Better Verify Scientific Research

JoeDuncan Re:So now we're all skeptics... (197 comments)

...gravity [has] necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement[s]...

Oh, yeah? Prove it.

Now that you have opened my eyes about this global "science" conspiracy, I cannot live in darkness anymore. The path you have laid for me is clear. Everything must be equally called in to question until I get personally satisfying answers.

about a year ago
top

How To Better Verify Scientific Research

JoeDuncan Re:So now we're all skeptics... (197 comments)

...except about something like catastrophic anthropogenic global warming :)

Oh man, you are totally right! How could I have been so blind! We should be more skeptical about shit like evolution and gravity too! Down with close minded dogma!

about a year ago
top

Nebraska Scientists Refuse To Carry Out Climate Change-Denying Study

JoeDuncan Re:You think that government is apolitical? (640 comments)

...big solar and big wind...

LOL - how can you say that with a straight face? You must be trying to be funny. Admit it, you chuckled a bit as you typed that didn't you?

about a year ago
top

How Safe Is Cycling?

JoeDuncan Re:I'm a cyclist too, and you're victim-blaming (947 comments)

It's an example of how 95% of cyclists in my city and many others ride.

No. This statement is an example of how biased your perceptions and recollections are. As other people have already pointed out, in any study ever done on the subject, the results have been the same: the vast majority of bike-car collisions are caused by motorists, not cyclists.

The problem is that the way the human perceptual and attentional systems work is that we only notice, perceive and remember things which stand out or generate an emotional reaction. Just about everything else gets filtered out. We literally don't notice, attend to, or remember the instances which don't stand out or don't piss us off. So, either:

1) all studies done on the subject are wrong and you have some kind of superhuman cognitive abilities
OR
2) you are wrong and making stuff up

It's likely not intentional on your part - it very well could be that 95% of the cyclists you observe do behave in this manner, but this is only because you are literally failing to notice the vast majority of cyclists who don't behave recklessly or piss you off somehow.

Our perceptions and recollections are horribly biased, and even more so concerning "the Others" that are not part of our in-group. Correcting for this bias is the primary reason we have science. And the science on this says you are wrong. Unless you are a superhero, in which case you should probably be out fighting crime instead of wasting time on Slashdot.

about a year ago
top

How Safe Is Cycling?

JoeDuncan Re:It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic (947 comments)

We're reading the study quite differently. I think it's quite clear that the researchers were interested in neither legal culpability nor determining which party made the "worse" error in judgement. They quite clearly state that listing an accident as caused by one party or another is for classification purposes only.

I agree that we are reading it differently, and I admit your interpretation of the researchers' interests is a possible one - but it is far from clear. It certainly isn't clearly stated that the labels are for "classification purposes only" anywhere. Do you mean this quote?:

The categories are defined by the driver- or cyclist-actions that describe each event most succinctly. Categories named "Ride Out..." refer to the actions of a cyclist, while "Drive Out..." refers to the actions of a motorist. Although they may refer to the actions of only one party, these labels are not intended to assign fault.

Again the "assign fault" in the above quote means legal culpability. Possibly it means physical "cause" as well, but this is doubtful, as they are quite clear about making a specific distinction between "cause" and legal "fault" later on (when discussing cyclists riding on the sidewalk):

...While cyclists in such cases may therefore be deemed at fault in law, it is probably not correct to suggest that sidewalk cycling was the sole "cause" of these collisions. In many collisions of this type, it is quite likely that the motorist did not come to a complete stop before crossing the stop bar....

As you can see here, they are saying that while a cyclist riding on a sidewalk who gets struck by a car at an intersection might be found legally culpable they attribute the actual cause of the accident to the motorist's behaviour

Nowhere do they say the bins are arbitrary classifications. The bit about "...that describe each event most succinctly" indicates that the bins ARE related to the behaviours which precipitated the collision. Furthermore, their bin types are derived from (and meant to be comparable to) those of the Federal Highway Administration's (which you can find here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/96104/). The FHA's crash types are specifically defined as:

These crashes can be classified or "typed" by their precipitating actions, predisposing factors, and characteristic populations and/or location that can be targeted for intervention.

So, the type classifications they're using are very much meant to indicate which behaviour precipitated the collision (and who's behaviour needs to be corrected)

In the quotes I included above the researchers disclaim both fault and absolute cause.

I believe I have already adequately addressed your first quote, but your second quote: "Thus it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control." is taken entirely out of context. It's from a section dealing with other secondary contributing factors that may have played a role in addition to the main cause. The sentence you quoted is referring to their inability to make an accurate comparison of cyclist caused collisions due to disobeying traffic control vs motorist caused collisions due to disobeying traffic control - because secondary contributing factors were not recorded in all cases. Here's the same quote with the relevant preceding context:

...Note that, while some of these factors (weather conditions, etc.) are known in almost all cases, others (such as disobeying traffic control) appear to have been reported less consistently. Thus it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control.

It's quite clear from that section that what they're saying is that of the collisions caused by motorists and those caused by cyclists, they cannot compare the proportion of each that were due to disobeying traffic control (e.g. running a red). So they can't say something like "Of the collisions caused by cyclists 60% were due to disobeying traffic signals, while of the collisions caused by motorists only 40% were due to disobeying traffic signals.". This necessarily implies that the crash types assigned do indicate an attribution of cause to either the cyclist or the motorist in the first place.

As for the rest of your last comment, you do realize that it is simply your opinion and perspective right? I could tell you a whole slew of similar stories about the poor behaviour of motorists as well, but it would only be my opinion and perspective. The point is that we are BOTH biased in our perceptions and observations, we BOTH only notice and remember the behaviours of "the Other" that piss us off, and we BOTH empathize more with the side that is most similar to us. So again, while I could go on with stories that are basically the same as yours but where its motorists driving recklessly, I realize that I am likely highly biased in my perceptions and memories. They are likely not representative of actuality. There's simply no way to tell from anecdotes who's correct, my opinion isn't any more valid than yours, and yours isn't any more valid than mine. The only way to really grasp what's happening is with empirical data.

While there is some small ambiguity in the interpretation of the study I linked, I also mentioned earlier that the same basic findings had been replicated in other studies. Someone else was nice enough to post links to articles summarizing some of those other studies elsewhere in the comments. I'll reproduce them here:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/study-blames-drivers-for-bike-crashes-20101122-18330.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

While it may seem to you like cyclists behave in a more reckless and dangerous manner, the data simply doesn't support that view. In the end though, it's up to you whether to ignore the data or re-evaluate your preconceptions.

about a year ago
top

How Safe Is Cycling?

JoeDuncan Re:You prove the point (947 comments)

In other words, the bikers that were hurt were stupid enough to assume that the motorist was in any way paying attention. You can hugely reduce the risk by making that assumption and acting accordingly, including beady ready to swerve out of a bike lane if a car weaves into it.

It may have technically been the motorist at "fault", but from my biking experience on real roads if you just assume cars have no idea you are there you will save yourself from many a near miss and/or accident. I'd rather be alive than smug.

I agree completely. I do precisely the same thing. I generally assumed that most motorists are criminally incompetent idiots. I know this is incorrect, and that the vast majority of motorists are good, law-abiding citizens and competent drivers who are aware of their surroundings. But when you're sharing the road with someone driving a 5 ton metal box at 3-4x your speed, assuming they're a moron can save your life.

about a year ago

Submissions

Journals

JoeDuncan has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?