Re:AI and will it make our lives safer

[patman post]

My neglected and largely abandoned IT geek side is coming out here -

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252492564/Belgian-security-researcher-hacks-Tesla-with-Raspberry-Pi

Having run vehicles with keyless entry and start-up systems for a few years, I am aware that unauthorised access is nothing new. Instead of just throwing the key on the hall table when getting home, we've trained ourselves to drop them in a lidded tin...

https://www.locksmiths.co.uk/faq/keyless-car-theft/

[Borg Refinery]

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea - I made it pretty clear that I expected any such technology to be tested and regulated to heck.  Driverless cars are already a reality in several US cities, and I'm pretty confident that within a decade or so, the technology will be good enough that the steering wheel could be removed. 

As I've said, nothing can ever be 100% safe in all unforseen situations, but it can become safer on average than leaving it under the control of a human.

My neglected and largely abandoned IT geek side is coming out here -

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252492564/Belgian-security-researcher-hacks-Tesla-with-Raspberry-Pi

[Borg Refinery]

Will AI make our lives safer Javert is certain it will,will it have a profound effect on all our lives? Certainly will,people aren't concerned right now,it isn't an issue but it will be,forget corona virus,leaving the eu what happens when you have millions of people not working,AI and robotics producing and doing all the work,life of Riley down the pub,on the beach....I think not.

Nobody is bothered or concerned........yet,but they will be.

They are bothered and concerned. There have been huge protests against various forms of automation already, and in favour of a UBI as jobs go to bots.

It will be used to drive down costs and make trillion dollar corporations while humans starve, as per usual neolib doctrine.

[Barry]

AI is currently serving me up adverts for something I have already recently ordered online. How intelligent is that?

[cromwell]

Will AI make our lives safer Javert is certain it will,will it have a profound effect on all our lives? Certainly will,people aren't concerned right now,it isn't an issue but it will be,forget corona virus,leaving the eu what happens when you have millions of people not working,AI and robotics producing and doing all the work,life of Riley down the pub,on the beach....I think not.

Nobody is bothered or concerned........yet,but they will be.

[Borchester]

Had a maths teacher who thought that way — or professed to. He made sure we could use logarithmic tables.

I have always worked on the assumption that the idea of maths is to make life as easy as possible. But there is always an exception to every rule and a prime example was John Napier, a mathematical giant and a complete nut. His logarithmic tables were powers of e, which is approximately 2.71828....

So if you want ln10 for example, all you need do is calculate the power of 2.71828... that makes 10 and there you are. Easy peasy, can't think why folk make such a fuss. 

[cromwell]

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea - I made it pretty clear that I expected any such technology to be tested and regulated to heck.  Driverless cars are already a reality in several US cities, and I'm pretty confident that within a decade or so, the technology will be good enough that the steering wheel could be removed. 

As I've said, nothing can ever be 100% safe in all unforseen situations, but it can become safer on average than leaving it under the control of a human.

https://youtu.be/ARJ8cAGm6JE

[Javert]

It does seem as if Javert has a blind faith in technologies which are at best, unproven.

I guess this would change his mind a bit..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/15/councils-using-algorithms-make-welfare-decisions-benefits

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea - I made it pretty clear that I expected any such technology to be tested and regulated to heck.  Driverless cars are already a reality in several US cities, and I'm pretty confident that within a decade or so, the technology will be good enough that the steering wheel could be removed. 

As I've said, nothing can ever be 100% safe in all unforseen situations, but it can become safer on average than leaving it under the control of a human.

[patman post]

Dunno.

The way I look at it technological advances are usually a good idea because they require problem solving and that is always a plus. However, the idea of AI is that a machine does the thinking which is a bit of a no no.

Had a maths teacher who thought that way — or professed to. He made sure we could use logarithmic tables. He then taught us how to use a slide rule. Then to cap it all he taught us how to use the log tables to make our own paper/card slide rule. Fantastic.

Haven't used either log tables or slide rules since leaving school. Electronic calculators — or mobile phone — make life so much easier. The only out-of-the-ordinary DIY maths I might use now is simplified Pythagoras (rule of 3, 4, 5) for getting a right angle if there's no builders' square...

[Borchester]

I remember a while back having a pub conversation with a couple of mates about this kind of thing. My choices (we were discussing what we believed were the 3 most important or life changing inventions of modern times) were 1) nuclear weapons 2) the contraceptive pill and 3) the internet

Each in its own way changed the world. The question is would the world always be a better place because of technology, and my answer (alone against the other two) was no.

Dunno.

The way I look at it technological advances are usually a good idea because they require problem solving and that is always a plus. However, the idea of AI is that a machine does the thinking which is a bit of a no no.

[Borg Refinery]

...and of course this makes everything fine. I don't think you understand either JOG's  or my opinion. So be it.

It does seem as if Javert has a blind faith in technologies which are at best, unproven.

I guess this would change his mind a bit..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/15/councils-using-algorithms-make-welfare-decisions-benefits

[johnofgwent]

All fine, but, these arguments seem pretty similar to me to the same arguments that stopped most or all human technological progress of any kind for several hundred years during the dark ages.

To be clear, if those vehicles are demonstrably more dangerous than having a human driver, then obviously they should not be allowed on the road.  I'm sure we agree on that.  What we seem to be disagreeing on is whether they should be allowed on the road if they are demonstrably safer than a human driver.

Well, my personal experience to date is that of overoptimism and secrecy regarding failures.

But I suppose there is one easy solution.

Back in 1999 Boeing laid on a fleet of aircraft fitted with the latest avionics upgrades and a serious champagne and caviar and all the trimmings party at several of their production sites.

And sent invites to the CEOs of all their prime and second line contractors.

Telling them to come and take a midnight flight on New Millenniums Eve or have their name published in a centre page as in Flight International as a CEO whose faith in the product they sold to Boeing was insufficient to warrant their being the beneficiary of it in flight as the new millennium dawned.

My mate who wrote part of the networking system inside the 777 and updated the 747 told me the caviar was most acceptable

I'll believe the AI works the day Musk agrees to ride a Tesla handcuffed and legironed along a route of my choosing with me and the boys alongside. We'll bring our own vehicles to run our own system test of his AI's evasion tactics ...

[DeppityDawg]

What really worries me is the almost unthinking acceptance and trust. I know there are accusations that too many have been taught to pass exams rather than think but I find it really dismaying.

I understand the point you are trying to make. There are those (it easy to see which posters on here fall into that category, as they are also the same ones with a blind belief in coronavirus or climate science) with an almost blind belief that "technology" is a god almost in itself and whatever it brings must be obeyed.

Me, the great pragmatist I suppose, but I tend to look at technology from its negatives. All technology comes with down sides too. I guess much of that view comes from having been taught to use the products of science negatively.

I remember a while back having a pub conversation with a couple of mates about this kind of thing. My choices (we were discussing what we believed were the 3 most important or life changing inventions of modern times) were 1) nuclear weapons 2) the contraceptive pill and 3) the internet

Each in its own way changed the world. The question is would the world always be a better place because of technology, and my answer (alone against the other two) was no.

[cromwell]

Mod Notice
OK topic split,and on a lighter note would AI have changed the thread heading on all the previous posts?
'Cos I sure as hell ain't going to do it 

[T00ts]

All fine, but, these arguments seem pretty similar to me to the same arguments that stopped most or all human technological progress of any kind for several hundred years during the dark ages.

To be clear, if those vehicles are demonstrably more dangerous than having a human driver, then obviously they should not be allowed on the road.  I'm sure we agree on that.  What we seem to be disagreeing on is whether they should be allowed on the road if they are demonstrably safer than a human driver.

As regards the A300 aircraft, I have no idea but certainly I've been on quite a few flights where auto land was used and it worked fine - in fact, several times when I had an landing so smooth that you hardly even knew the wheels had touched the ground, it turned out to be an auto land.  You could be right about the A300 but it's a pretty old plane.

Also, no doubt this will be seen as another immoral comment, but even if there is a big accident that kills hundreds of people, if the total people killed on the road in that year is less than before, it's still on average safer.

In a similar vein, round the world and specifically in the USA, there are sometimes airliner accidents where several hundred people are killed at the same time.  However, if airliners were banned and all those people took road trips to their destination, even more people would be killed annually - it just wouldn't make the news as their deaths would be spread over the year and not all at the same time in a fireball.

...and of course this makes everything fine. I don't think you understand either JOG's  or my opinion. So be it.