The future of tech, and people

[Ulysses]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ancer-test


Where's our cancer doc?

Inexpensive
Ten minute test

Oh well, we are the US and we don't use no kinda foreign drugs cause they ain't as pure as ourn.


oops - that is unless you are a drug company
They buy your drugs from india so you won't have to.


https://abcnews.go.com/Health/high-bloo ... d=59527133

Yeah, I have received this year some medications made in all sorts of weird places. Perhaps India was one of them. Kaiser Pharmacy.

[Vrede too]

Americans were asked to name leading women in tech. Alexa and Siri were the top answers.

[Vrede too]

Judgement Day is coming.

Judgment Day is closer.

Killer Robots Aren't Science Fiction. A Push to Ban Them is Growing.

[O Really]

Let's see, once upon a time, airplanes flew over an area and dropped bombs somewhat indiscriminately, hoping to hit something that would destroy enemy capability, or maybe their desire/willingness to fight. Then some people got bombs with better direction control, and much if not most of the time hit at least the right building(s) or targets. And now somebody is worried that a computer can't tell the difference in a guy with a bazooka and one with a broom? I suppose that's progress

[Vrede too]

Let's see, once upon a time, airplanes flew over an area and dropped bombs somewhat indiscriminately, hoping to hit something that would destroy enemy capability, or maybe their desire/willingness to fight. Then some people got bombs with better direction control, and much if not most of the time hit at least the right building(s) or targets. And now somebody is worried that a computer can't tell the difference in a guy with a bazooka and one with a broom? I suppose that's progress

My issue is more with the approaching time that AI robots don't care.

[Ulysses]

Let's see, once upon a time, airplanes flew over an area and dropped bombs somewhat indiscriminately, hoping to hit something that would destroy enemy capability, or maybe their desire/willingness to fight. Then some people got bombs with better direction control, and much if not most of the time hit at least the right building(s) or targets. And now somebody is worried that a computer can't tell the difference in a guy with a bazooka and one with a broom? I suppose that's progress

Isn't that a photo of Hiroshima after it was hit by the first atomic bomb used in warfare? I respectfully submit that precise aiming wasn't all that critical with that thang. Although I understand the bomb that hit Nagasaki, due to heavy cloud cover, detonated too high up and/or off target, resulting in less than expected destruction and loss of human life. And if I'm not mistaken, Hiroshima was a uranium bomb; Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb.

[O Really]

Yes, that's the remains of Hiroshima. But I didn't claim that bomb was particularly well-directed, except it did hit the city, sorta. That was early on the bombing continuum that goes from "flatten everything" to "tell the robot to look for the guy with a bomb in his backpack and shoot him"

[Vrede too]

Isn't that a photo of Hiroshima after it was hit by the first atomic bomb used in warfare? I respectfully submit that precise aiming wasn't all that critical with that thang. Although I understand the bomb that hit Nagasaki, due to heavy cloud cover, detonated too high up and/or off target, resulting in less than expected destruction and loss of human life. And if I'm not mistaken, Hiroshima was a uranium bomb; Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb.

O Really's point was perfectly clear as it relates to my AI post and it did not require you to "respectfully submit" a correction. I swear, sometimes you act like we've posted in Greek.

(signature: thread-abusing gibberish)

viewtopic.php?p=152492#p152492

[Ulysses]

Yes, that's the remains of Hiroshima. But I didn't claim that bomb was particularly well-directed, except it did hit the city, sorta. That was early on the bombing continuum that goes from "flatten everything" to "tell the robot to look for the guy with a bomb in his backpack and shoot him"

Well, from what I've read, and not from personal observation, the Hiroshima bomb was much better aimed than the Nagasaki bomb. As I recally, the terrain around Nagasaki played a role in that, with bomb exploding over a nearby canyon rather than directly over the city. I reserve the right to correct this, as needed.

[O Really]

Good grief - it doesn't matter if it was aimed better or worse. Point is, that type of bomb just blew hell out of everything standing for miles. Killed off military, civilians, geishas and dogs. Maybe not the roaches, but everything else. Current technology allows more precise targeting. Again, if we used to scorch the earth, and now we send a robot to find some bad guys and wring our hands that the robot might shoot something other than the intended bad guy, then I suppose that's progress in civilization.

[Ulysses]

Good grief - it doesn't matter if it was aimed better or worse. Point is, that type of bomb just blew hell out of everything standing for miles. Killed off military, civilians, geishas and dogs. Maybe not the roaches, but everything else. Current technology allows more precise targeting. Again, if we used to scorch the earth, and now we send a robot to find some bad guys and wring our hands that the robot might shoot something other than the intended bad guy, then I suppose that's progress in civilization.

Again, aiming was not really a problem with the Hiroshima bomb. So I don't know why you are focused on that. It was a major factor in the Nagasaki bomb. The Hiroshima bomb was only off target by about 800 feet. The Nagasaki bomb was off target by about about two miles.

Also, the Hiroshima bomb was poorly designed. According to one source, it was able to produce only about 2% of the possible energy contained in its U-235 core. Still it was capable of 16 KT destructive power, more than enough to obliterate most of Hiroshima. And, again, the main problem in Nagasaki from the bomber's point of view, is that a mountain ridge blocked most of bomb's power from impacting the center of that city. The Nagasaki bomb was a more efficient plutonium design, delivering about 21 KT destructive power. But, again, due to the aiming issue, along with the blocking ridge, it did not cause as much death and destruction as the Hiroshima weapon.

[Vrede too]

Good grief - it doesn't matter if it was aimed better or worse. Point is, that type of bomb just blew hell out of everything standing for miles. Killed off military, civilians, geishas and dogs. Maybe not the roaches, but everything else. Current technology allows more precise targeting. Again, if we used to scorch the earth, and now we send a robot to find some bad guys and wring our hands that the robot might shoot something other than the intended bad guy, then I suppose that's progress in civilization.

You might want to quote me more often. When Useless intrudes on a conversation he does so at a distinct disadvantage since he has no clue what the original topic was. This makes him post even dumber than the normal Useless.

Alternatively, when Useless is being dense - opps, denser than usual - you can suggest for his own good that he stop being such an ass and just open my posts.

(pretentious and irrelevant babbling)

O Really's "Good grief ..." should have been a HUGE clue for you to stfu.

[Vrede too]

‘This breaches every principle of human research ethics’: A YouTuber trained an A.I. bot on toxic 4Chan posts then let it loose — and experts aren’t happy

Could we have a bot among us right now? Any candidates?

Maybe I'm a chatbot starting this tangent as a cover?

[Vrede too]

Judgement Day is coming.

Judgment Day is closer.

Killer Robots Aren't Science Fiction. A Push to Ban Them is Growing.

Robot dog outfitted with machine gun in Russia brings us closer to real-life ‘Black Mirror’



Arf2D2?



It will beat you at parkour . . . then kill you.

[Vrede too]

OpenAI’s former top safety researcher says there’s a ’10 to 20% chance’ that the tech will take over with many or most ‘humans dead’

[O Really]

I don't think it's an issue of AI becoming more intelligent than humans - clearly it is already much more intelligent than most RepuQ's. And I don't think it's likely AI will "decide" to intentionally kill off humans. I think the biggest risk is in over-dependence on AI, essentially giving it more control over everything and then a real glitch or an evil human occurs and, for example, shuts off all the gas pumps or totally disrupts the food supply chain. It wouldn't actually take very much to create a big chaos.

[Vrede too]

I don't think it's an issue of AI becoming more intelligent than humans - clearly it is already much more intelligent than most RepuQ's. And I don't think it's likely AI will "decide" to intentionally kill off humans. I think the biggest risk is in over-dependence on AI, essentially giving it more control over everything and then a real glitch or an evil human occurs and, for example, shuts off all the gas pumps or totally disrupts the food supply chain. It wouldn't actually take very much to create a big chaos.

There are so many ways that things can go wrong, including Judgement Day IMO.


How Meta’s New Face Camera Heralds a New Age of Surveillance

Nope, and not just because of the privacy implications - all the reasons that the reporter details.

[O Really]

$300 for a pair of Ray-Ban (looks like Wayfarer) with a smart camera? Heck, I paid more than that for prescription Wayfarers without a camera.

[O Really]

So does anybody here use wireless earbuds? I've got a pair that have never been very satisfactory - so unsatisfactory that I usually just use wired buds.

If you use them and you like the ones you have, I'd appreciate opinions. I'm looking at this list, probably the Sony WF-C700N.

https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/i-tes ... ttery-life

[Vrede too]

Shouldn't have been evil.

How Google's huge defeat in antitrust case could change how you search the internet
GoMerrickGo!