Autonomous (self driving) vehicles.

[JagXKR]

At Naksup Hot springs met a programmer who uses AI, he says of it that AI works, gives good solid results but we have no way of actually knowing how it does it.

I have no idea what was told to you or by whom, but there is no AI.
Period.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+ai ... e&ie=UTF-8

Also
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0494-4

My conclusion is very simple: Hubert Dreyfus’ arguments against general AI are still valid.

Not only valid but comprehensive.

[I Think]

At Naksup Hot springs met a programmer who uses AI, he says of it that AI works, gives good solid results but we have no way of actually knowing how it does it.

I have no idea what was told to you or by whom, but there is no AI.
Period.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+ai ... e&ie=UTF-8

Also
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0494-4

My conclusion is very simple: Hubert Dreyfus’ arguments against general AI are still valid.

Not only valid but comprehensive.

Lordy there are thousands of people involved in ai, you perhaps should let them know that they are not.

[JagXKR]

There is no AI. I have shown links to that truth.
What some simpletons and charlatans call AI is NOT AI.
Machine learning programs and heuristics.
Augmented intelligence. Self learning. Sure.
Not AI.

https://www.swoknews.com/opinion/wannab ... d%20movies.

For all its pomp and circumstance, the term has lost much of its original meaning. As the world stands now, in 2020, true artificial intelligence doesn’t exist.

Now, you might be thinking, but what about all of these companies that are constantly touting their AI? Well, essentially, what they are going on about isn’t AI as we’ve been taught to think about it by books and movies. These aren’t sentient machines, but they are self-learning.

https://www.information-age.com/true-ai ... -123468452

Instead, he suggests, tech companies claiming to do ‘AI’ actually only provide an augmented intelligence.
While many companies claim to provide “AI-driven” solutions, in reality they’re leveraging machine learning techniques at best, developing what Ganzarski refers to as augmented intelligence.

[I Think]

Hotz and Musk two of the biggest names in autonomous driving both claim that they (their companies) are using artificial intelligence to analyze the data streams from the vehicles using their systems.
I took a course in C language programming in the 1980's and my teacher used to use the term back then.
How ever if you want to call ai augumented intelligence or machine learning no worries.

[JagXKR]

Hotz and Musk two of the biggest names in autonomous driving both claim that they (their companies) are using artificial intelligence to analyze the data streams from the vehicles using their systems.
I took a course in C language programming in the 1980's and my teacher used to use the term back then.
How ever if you want to call ai augumented intelligence or machine learning no worries.

NO. You don't get to call something whatever you like. If it isn't what it is then it's not what you say, just because.
Saying something is x when it is actually y is a falsehood.
And you have skewed your statement to slant it in your favour.
People can call augmented intelligence AI, NOT the other way around.
Simpletons believe augmented intelligence is AI.
Hotz and Musk are salesmen.
Simpletons buy the BS from salesmen.

[Jlabute]

Hotz and Musk two of the biggest names in autonomous driving both claim that they (their companies) are using artificial intelligence to analyze the data streams from the vehicles using their systems.
I took a course in C language programming in the 1980's and my teacher used to use the term back then.
How ever if you want to call ai augumented intelligence or machine learning no worries.

Many words are over-used these days such as AI, Smart, Virtual. Light bulbs are “smart”? A light bulb can be programmed to react to a schedule or lighting conditions but there is no real intelligence in the bulb. A microcontroller executing compiled C code doesn’t make it smart even if there is half a million lines of code. It is just a simple electronic machine comparable to a toaster. “Virtual reality” was going to create an artificial world indistinguishable from the real world. Of course that never happened nor will it ever in our lifetime. Now we call anything that uses digital glasses, VR. AI was supposed to make machine intelligence indistinguishable from human intelligence, or, general AI as it is called. This will not be seen in our lifetime and we thought it would had been easier. To give people the idea AI is making progress, we call complex software algorithms and techniques, AI. Anything that makes something appear smart is called AI and TV video processors include marketing terms like AI.

I recall a particular grandiose experiment decades ago where a team in California was programming a computer with all the “facts” imaginable, thinking that overwhelming knowledge would automatically form AI. We have seen simple simulations over the decades, but nothing convincing. Being able to drive without road lines, in poor conditions works best with real intelligence. This could be the case for the next 100 years.

One thing you can hand to computers though, they are faster than us at making obvious decisions.

General AI. Personally I don’t see such a thing anywhere on the horizon. First, we don’t understand how a real brain works so we can’t simulate it. Second, humans can sample the real world with senses and process it according to natural needs and desires. AI may never have human understanding because it will never have the same needs. Self-driving uses very complex algorithms and techniques to make it appear smart, but that doesn’t mean it is smart. It is still a machine executing instructions like a light-bulb, just with more complicated software and sensors. The question always is, how far can we get with the current technology of today. Driving has to be limited to conditions that are easily detectable or obvious to humans.

LiDAR can be used to detect potholes and bumps, whether or not Tesla or others care about such things or the sensors also focus on road conditions I don’t know. Since you can’t tell how deep a water filled pothole is, it would be better to avoid it.

[I Think]

In a surprise announcement, Tesla, Waymo, and Cruise have declared that they are going to race their best self-driving vehicles from San Francisco to New York City (NYC) later this year.

No humans will be allowed in the cars, not even passengers overseeing the progress and available for emergency purposes. Instead, teams of support personnel, PR people, and potential service vehicles will travel along with the Tesla, Waymo, and Cruise self-driving cars. Each company will have 3 opportunities to “save” their vehicles if they get stranded/stuck. For example, if one of them ended up going in a loop in a roundabout, unable to exit, the parent company could use one of their 3 saves to help the vehicle exit. After 3 saves, if the car cannot complete the race, then it automatically loses/forfeits.

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/04/01/te ... co-to-nyc/

Edited to add:
ACH They got me it was released on April 1st.

[Jlabute]

News happens everyday, including April 1st, but the article does say to make note of the date, lol.

There have been robo-taxi races and other various EV races previously. It would seem dangerous having class 2 vehicles autonomously race. Plus they will have to frequently recharge with human assistance I suppose. What would make it easier is having class 2 vehicles challenge a well known course. If the course was known in advance the contestants could rig their cars to better know the course. If the course is random, that’d be tough, if not illegal.

[I Think]

But there is no artificial intelligence??????????????????

An artificial intelligence has bested human champions in a modified version of bridge — a card game that's notoriously difficult for machines to master.

The tournament was hosted by the French company NukkAI, which invited eight bridge champions to pit their skills against NooK, an AI it designed specifically for that purpose.

"At the beginning of the challenge, they arrived and they were very confident," NukkAI CEO Jean-Baptiste Fantun, a mathematician and prominent bridge player himself, told As It Happens guest host Gillian Findlay.

"After one or two sets of 10 deals, they really began to worry a little bit."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.6402861

[Jlabute]

But there is no artificial intelligence??????????????????

An artificial intelligence has bested human champions in a modified version of bridge — a card game that's notoriously difficult for machines to master.

The tournament was hosted by the French company NukkAI, which invited eight bridge champions to pit their skills against NooK, an AI it designed specifically for that purpose.

"At the beginning of the challenge, they arrived and they were very confident," NukkAI CEO Jean-Baptiste Fantun, a mathematician and prominent bridge player himself, told As It Happens guest host Gillian Findlay.

"After one or two sets of 10 deals, they really began to worry a little bit."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.6402861

Chess, Bridge, Checkers, Go, all have simple rules, and a computer can make decision trees of best moves a billion times quicker than a human. These games are trained by professional human players, and they play each other a million times until they learn moves or techniques as best they can. It is iterative training based on rules. We've had computer chess since many people here were in diapers. Certainly, just because computers can play a game, does it mean they are intelligent? Complex algorithms that weigh one decision over an other can give an appearance of intelligence. Just because an algorithm is complex, creative, or weighs values, does that make it AI?

If you take the same techniques and apply it to driving, when new situations never before encountered occur, you can't anticipate what will happen. There is no fixed set of rules when it comes to driving. It is also based on sensor input and sensors can be fooled.

[MCB]

Secretly they all run on BASIC!

[I Think]

Hotz and Musk two of the biggest names in autonomous driving both claim that they (their companies) are using artificial intelligence to analyze the data streams from the vehicles using their systems.
I took a course in C language programming in the 1980's and my teacher used to use the term back then.
How ever if you want to call ai augumented intelligence or machine learning no worries.

NO. You don't get to call something whatever you like. If it isn't what it is then it's not what you say, just because.
Saying something is x when it is actually y is a falsehood.
And you have skewed your statement to slant it in your favour.
People can call augmented intelligence AI, NOT the other way around.
Simpletons believe augmented intelligence is AI.
Hotz and Musk are salesmen.
Simpletons buy the BS from salesmen.

If you call something F, and state your reasons for calling that thing F, because A,B,C,&D apply, and the subset of arguments holds true, then you may continue to call that thing F, simply because you have defined the meaning of F in terms of A,B,C etc., that sir is simple semantics and is the basis of any sound argument.

[GordonH]

I just see it, these autonomous vehicles get together and say human drivers need to go.

[JagXKR]

If you call something F, and state your reasons for calling that thing F, because A,B,C,&D apply, and the subset of arguments holds true, then you may continue to call that thing F, simply because you have defined the meaning of F in terms of A,B,C etc., that sir is simple semantics and is the basis of any sound argument.

Absolute gobbledygook. Your reasons are faulty and so therefore your semantics are false and your conclusion is invalid.
AI does not exist. Keeping your false argument going that it does exist shows your lack of scientific knowledge or lack of understanding of science. Defending your inability to grasp a simple fact shows that your avatar name is an antonym.

[I Think]

If you call something F, and state your reasons for calling that thing F, because A,B,C,&D apply, and the subset of arguments holds true, then you may continue to call that thing F, simply because you have defined the meaning of F in terms of A,B,C etc., that sir is simple semantics and is the basis of any sound argument.

Absolute gobbledygook. Your reasons are faulty and so therefore your semantics are false and your conclusion is invalid.
AI does not exist. Keeping your false argument going that it does exist shows your lack of scientific knowledge or lack of understanding of science. Defending your inability to grasp a simple fact shows that your avatar name is an antonym.

Absolute nonsense.