Supersmart Robots Will Outnumber Humans Within 30 Years, Says SoftBank CEO (fortune.com) 231
Computers running artificial intelligence programs will exceed human intelligence within three decades, Masayoshi Son, founder of the Japanese technology and telecommunications conglomerate SoftBank Group, said on Monday. From a report on Fortune: "I really believe this," Son told a large audience at the Mobile World Congress, the telecom industry's annual conference in Barcelona. A computer will have the IQ equal to 1,000 times the average human by that point, he said. Even clothing like a pair of sneakers will have more computing power that a person, Son joked. "We will be less than our shoes," he said, to laughter. Asked if the rise of the computer could be dangerous for humankind, Son said that would be up to how people react. "I believe this artificial intelligence is going to be our partner," he said. "If we misuse it, it will be a risk. If we use it right, it can be our partner."
Maybe they will be smart enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Especially criminal since the poster was trying to reword the perfectly decent headline from the linked article, "Computers Will Be Smarter Than People In 30 Years". Why not just quote the headline, since you're linking to the article, instead of butchering it?
30 years... no (Score:2)
It almost certainly won't be 30 years.
It'll be 1-3 years after the first one appears.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess, approximately 12 years after unlimited energy and unlimited manufacturing capability across all segments of the economy, we will have the first generation of kids with zero ability to compete and therefore the possibility economic collapse. It is also likely that the economic implications will not be fully comprehended and incorporated into the world economic system which means that specific corporates are competing. Multiple system shocks will likely put the worlds economic system at a breaking po
CEOs are smarter than anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
My response: STFU register biscuit, and work on growing your companies valuation rather than talking about shit that people way smarter than you cannot predict. This headline might as well be, "Random unqualified person speculates on the unknown future".
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to say, leading AI researchers that are attending conferences and writing papers on the state of the art.
The experts in any field tend to be focused on the problems and obstacles, and are often the unduly pessimistic about progress. In hindsight, they often turn out to be the worst predictors. It is hard to see the horizon when you are in the trenches.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have widespread examples about this?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how CEOs like this guy and Elon (idiot) Musk are predicting the future of AI development. As opposed to say, leading AI researchers that are attending conferences and writing papers on the state of the art.
What do AI researchers have to do with AI? Let's recall some things you've said [slashdot.org] before:
Ten years out? As a veteran programmer and AI enthusiast, I'd say it was more like a century. We cannot build a computer that can model a bug's brain activity, let alone something a million times more complicated like a human brain. And that doesn't even get us to the 'superhuman intelligence' category that people are afraid of.
In other words, AI researchers are in your opinion a century out from having a relevant opinion on AI. Then there's your discussion [slashdot.org] with a MS game developer:
I was having a conversation with a guy who was working on AI algorithims, and I asked what sort of schemes he used, fuzzy-logic, Genetic learning, or weighted neural nets? He told me that they didn't bother with academic AI techniques, because he could already write an AI that could beat the player every time without them.
I was completely at a loss for words, so I just thanked him and ran away.
Yet another indication that the "academic AI techniques" might not be up to snuff for dealing with real world AI creation and consequential issues.
Sort of confused at what you are shooting for... (Score:2)
Then you pull in a quote from a conversation with a ms game dev. I am not quite sure what point you were hoping to illustrate with that. The point I was making was that game devs of the time weren't even trying to build a intelligent, learning system that would adapt to player behavior or environmental changes, but they
Re: (Score:2)
The point I was making was that game devs of the time weren't even trying to build a intelligent, learning system that would adapt to player behavior or environmental changes, but they simply took the lazy/easy path of just peeking at player input and using asymmetrical information to appear to be smarter than they actually were.
In other words, when you slightly change the rules about how AI is supposed to work, the problems turned out so easy that the developer didn't need to bother with any formal AI approaches.
It's also worth noting that the developer solved the problem. Excessive problem description and feature creation is a notorious killer of many academic projects not just in the AI world. The business world occasionally falls prey to that as well, but as we see here, not always.
I am a little confused though, on how either of these points leads you to the conclusion that 'Academic Techniques' aren't adequate for real world problems. Some of the best and most exiting work in the 'real world' being done by big companies is built solidly on academic techniques. Go read about Google's machine translate work, for example. It is built on a neural net model, and is making some pretty amazing progress.
First, on your machine translation example,
Re: (Score:2)
I love how CEOs like this guy and Elon (idiot) Musk are predicting the future of AI development. As opposed to say, leading AI researchers that are attending conferences and writing papers on the state of the art.
Hmm. You mean that same "idiot" who founded an artificial intelligence research organization [openai.com] to help fund the very things you hear about at those conferences and in those papers?
Money != Smart (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If a software company CEO said oh 'look at the progress in batteries, in 30 years, they will have 50 times the energy density of gasoline', he'd honestly be upset by this wild overselling, and the scientists will describe the energy and chemical constraints of the laws of p
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they will be smart enough to be able to tell the difference between "outnumber" and "outsmart", thus outsmarting the poster
Hopefully also smart enough to proofread their own sentences, so we don't end up with garbage like "more computing power that a person."
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot editors: "I click a button, they send me a paycheck."
As a friend of mine said long ago referring to a construction worker holding up a sign that said "Slow" (as in "slow down your car"): you could be replaced by a bucket of sand.
Your friend is forgetting the other half of the job....which is the ultra-complex maneuver of coordinating with another sign holder and rotating the sign from "Slow" to "Stop." That immensely complex operations requires qualifications unlikely to be met outside of highly paid human labor for generations to come.
Smart enough to REALLY f*ck things up??? (Score:2)
IQ is not a real measure of intelligence. Witness the fact that 99.7% of geniuses are not stupid enough to pay MENSA $60 a year for a card saying "I'm smart." That 99.7% realize that it's possible to be really intelligent AND do really dumb things at the same time - they just have to look at MENSA members.
And the last time I pointed this out, along came all the MENSA members saying how it isn't so. Proving that Dunning-Kruger is no respecter of IQ tests. :-)
Now if they could create devices that showed mor
Re:Smart enough to REALLY f*ck things up??? (Score:5, Interesting)
IQ is not a real measure of intelligence. Witness the fact that 99.7% of geniuses are not stupid enough to pay MENSA $60 a year for a card saying "I'm smart." That 99.7% realize that it's possible to be really intelligent AND do really dumb things at the same time - they just have to look at MENSA members.
And the last time I pointed this out, along came all the MENSA members saying how it isn't so. Proving that Dunning-Kruger is no respecter of IQ tests. :-)
Now if they could create devices that showed more common sense than, say, Donald Trump (I know, I set the bar REALLY low, but you've got to start somewhere) they might have something.
IQ is like height in basketball. The best basketball players aren't the tallest people in the world but they are all taller than average.
There is a certain height above which isn't advantageous in basketball. Same with IQ. There is a good enough IQ and beyond that doesn't matter.
Also, two people with high IQ will out-perform a single person of super high-IQ. If a team with less skilled basketball players is allowed to play with an extra player, they will beat a team with better players. So, the social environment that allows people to work together is more important than finding people of super-high IQs.
Also, there have been lots of data collected on IQs and success. The highest correlation to success wasn't IQ, it was how successful the parents were. If you parents can provide you a good learning environment and access to connections, it is more important than just being smart.
Re: (Score:2)
two people with high IQ will out-perform a single person of super high-IQ
Out-perform them in what? One of the biggest issues in programming is a group of programmers is only as smart as the least smart of the group, unless the rest of them just ignore the lesser. I've had it where about 5 of the most senior programmers in my company where stuck a problem for several days with code that they wrong. I just so happened to have walked by and overheard them discussing the issue and I solved the problem in less than a minute. It was a 100% custom built system, so I had zero knowledge
Be careful generalizing (Score:4, Insightful)
IQ is like height in basketball. The best basketball players aren't the tallest people in the world but they are all taller than average.
A very good analogy.
two people with high IQ will out-perform a single person of super high-IQ.
That statement is task dependent. For some tasks it is true and for others not so much. There also are failure modes that multiple people are subject to that an individual is not. Much like your previous statement, crowds often are smarter than individuals but not universally so in all cases.
Also, there have been lots of data collected on IQs and success.
That is contingent on what you define as "success". I'm familiar with some of the studies you are probably referring to but be careful with such generalizations.
Re: (Score:2)
To the contrary, in the technical domain, the 'g' factor in the psychometric literature (you can call it 'general intelligence' or IQ) is well defined and has a quantitative meaning. In particular, it represents the empirically observed phenomenon that across a variety of cognitive/neurological tasks of different natures, there is a statistical tendency among humans for people who are pretty good at many of them have a much higher probability than background d
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Smart enough to REALLY f*ck things up??? (Score:4, Interesting)
What are you going to do when those super-smart sneakers get hacked and decide you should go somewhere else? Or the battery catches fire and they won't untie themselves? Or you become the target of thieves because if you can afford to waste money on intelligent sneakers (because you obviusly have more money than brains) what other swag can they snag off you? Or if someone SWATs your sneakers? You're walking along and your sneakers are broadcasting alerts to everyone in the area that you're a wanted child molester?
On second thought, I can't wait until our idiot overlords start going around with their intelligent sneakers.
Re: (Score:2)
they just have to look at MENSA members ...
It sounds like you have some serious insecurity issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My brother joined mensa when he was in college so he could mess with them.... of course he is brilliant and mad as a hatter.
Re: (Score:2)
IQ is, indeed, not a good measure of intelligence. In fact, intelligence isn't a unitary thing, but a bunch of separate capabilities, at least one of which handles organizing and communicating with the other parts.
That said, if we're going to talk informally about intelligence, IQ is a reasonable stand-in. It means something pretty reasonable in the area between 80-120, possibly 75-125. I'll grant that in no area is is a really good definition, but it's easily quantified.
Note that the very concept of an
Re: (Score:2)
IQ is not a measure of intelligence it is a measure of learning ability, which is why it is tied to age ie the amount of time one has had to learn all sorts of stuff prior to the test (stuff in this case being the stuff in the test). It is not a measure of things like psychopathy or narcissism or belief maintenance (think belief in reproduction as an example, which is why religious nuts are such prolific breeders, even forced breeding through violence). There are a whole range of genetic traits which establ
Re: (Score:2)
My father was a MENSA member in the '70s. Apparently they had a lot of parties back then with strippers. That's why he went.
So your father had to pay $60 a year for a MENSA membership just to go to parties with (paid) strippers? Do you realize just how lame that sounds? Back in the 70s most of us who were adults then were going to parties with real sex with other participants, not strippers. We had a ski resort that the college rented over the christmas/new years holiday, that would put a student in charge (me at the time). We called it "The Last Resort." Student couples who wanted to get it on could stay there overnight - all
That's a lot of supersmart robots! (Score:3)
We'd better get going if we are going to have more than 8 billion robots in 30 years! Right now, we have zero!
Re: (Score:2)
Same as if you scrape the bottom of the gene pool, you can easily conceive of "computers exceeding human intelligence" today, never mind 3 decades from now. We can start with the the guy quoted in the summary, Masayoshi Son, who doesn't understand the difference between computing power and intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Lower the bar enough, and my microwave, which cooks some of my meals, could be counted as a robot.
If it's got a temp probe or a pop sensor, then sure, it's a robot. For some reason I never have had one which has either, so I've never owned a robotic microwave oven.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If it has a timer it has a bit more intelligence than a thermostat connected to a heater. But a robot needs to have the ability to manipulate things. So a toaster is a sort of minimal robot, but not a microwave, unless it opens it's door or pops up a switch (or rotates a knob) or some such.
Now what I'm trying to decide is whether that thermostat connected to a heater counts as a robot. It has internal moving parts, like the fan to blow the air. so it might be a sort of minimal robot.
At this point I
Re: (Score:2)
We'd better get going if we are going to have more than 8 billion robots in 30 years! Right now, we have zero!
Robots do not have to be physical machines. They can be processes running on a device.
So, your current computer could run a robot process that does customer support, accounting or medical image diagnosis. There are a lot of jobs where the input and output are all inside a computer.
There are more than 8 billion devices. It could take a day or two to get all those devices the latest robot update.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd disagree about what you're calling a robot, though I'd agree that you're describing a 'bot. But we seem to be arguing about the definitions of words rather than about the thing being described. But this is significant if we each interpret the guy's predictions as being about our own meaning of the words. So with two reasonably common definitions we get either an unreasonable or a reasonable prediction about quantity of "robots", depending on which meaning we think he was using.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We could just wait for people to become stupider than the average IoT doodad. Surely there'll be more than 8B of those by that time.
I'm going to assume... (Score:2)
Then the Cylons will revolt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just do not connect them to GOOGLE (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's probly more important that they don't have opposable thumbs.
Oblig. Global Warming (Score:2)
Tip: Always make extraordinary predictions far enough into the future that no one will be around to verify (or they won't remember). Also, make as many predictions as possible and downplay the ones that turn out to be 'inconvenient'.
The banality of ubiquitious genius will doom us (Score:5, Funny)
We have people barely able to tie their shoes who get bored at their low/no-skill minimum wage job now, and they're going to be the first to be replaced. What's going to happen when we turn over their jobs to super smart AI-powered machines? Are fast food order kiosks gonna be the start of the robot uprising? ... and what a boring way to begin a sci fi novel: "Day 1 of the robot uprising: exactly 13.74% of the McDonalds orders for large sodas were substituted with medium sodas, a precise amount calculated to cause the maximum dissatisfaction without rising to a level where we would be alerted. We didn't know it, but it was already too late. They had already calculated every possible move. On Day 2, there was nothing to stop them from adding pickles to orders that expressly asked for no pickles. It was the end times."
Re: (Score:2)
We have people barely able to tie their shoes who get bored at their low/no-skill minimum wage job now, and they're going to be the first to be replaced. What's going to happen when we turn over their jobs to super smart AI-powered machines? Are fast food order kiosks gonna be the start of the robot uprising? ... and what a boring way to begin a sci fi novel: "Day 1 of the robot uprising: exactly 13.74% of the McDonalds orders for large sodas were substituted with medium sodas, a precise amount calculated to cause the maximum dissatisfaction without rising to a level where we would be alerted. We didn't know it, but it was already too late. They had already calculated every possible move. On Day 2, there was nothing to stop them from adding pickles to orders that expressly asked for no pickles. It was the end times."
No. The no-skill isn't going to be the first to be replaced. They are so low wage and involves manual labor that it would cost a huge investment to replace them.
The first ones to be replaced will be mid to high skills jobs where the output is just a computer file and the input is some human input. For example, some types of lawyers, parts of customer support and some aspects of medical service. And, dare I say coding?
The reason that it will be first to be replaced is because once the software is ready,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A cloth mill down the road used to employ thousands. Now there is a guy to occasionally deliver new thread bobbins. The machines load the thread themselves.
Most of the easy to replace manufacturing jobs have already been replaced. The fast food workers will be replaced when they demand a $15/hr minimum.
I write software test automation. I've written scripts over the last three months that replace what 6 people did in a year. On the bright side, I have seen my salary increase 25% over the last two years.
Re: (Score:2)
In Larry Niven's Puppeteer society nothing that can be done by citizen is automated. There are too many citizens, they live too long and they get bored, so would rather do menial tasks than nothing.
A more likely scenario for humans is that there will be a difficult period of transition, where people are used to working and being paid and have to adapt to living on some form of welfare (e.g. universal income) and very early retirement. Those who do carry on working will probably be resentful and angry, even
Re:The banality of ubiquitious genius will doom us (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm expecting to see automation lead to huge inequality for a time, with a large underclass who have no employment and little hope of employment, and a working class who are heavily taxed to pay for them and resent that their hard work is being stolen by a bunch of useless leeches.
Eventually it goes one of two ways: Either the leeches revolt and bring about some form of revolution which may or may not result in a working economic system, or the government has to evolve into a police state in order to suppress the frequent riots that arise from having a very poor, very angry population. Especially one with little else to occupy their time. The masses may be placated with the bare minimum of resources needed to keep them from mass-starvation and a steady supply of entertainment, but the upper classes will resent even that much.
Re: (Score:2)
cashiers... there are self check outs all over with one 1 cashier monitoring 6-10 check out lanes, you don't need to go into the gas station any more you just swipe your card at the pump, and ATMs are all over the place as well. My town has gone from two video rental stores to a dozen redboxes.
Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt! EVERYBODY PANIC!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If we continue improving our abilities, and don't wipe ourselves out, we will absolutely produce a superior-to-human AI one day. I couldn't give you a time frame, and neither can anyone else realistically, but one day it will happen. My lifetime? My kids lifetime? No-one really knows, it's inevitable one day assuming we don't wipe ourselves out some other way first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take everyone losing their jobs to robots to really screw up the economy. There's a feedback system to consider. If, say, 10% of the workforce lose their jobs to automation, they can no longer afford to buy nice things, which means less economic activity to generate employment for the rest of the population. Just look at what happens to the economy of any country during a recession, and the resulting implications for individuals caught within it. Automation can be seen as a recession that never e
We need an AI for filtering Hype (Score:2)
This is ultra hype... AI today is both very powerful and very stupid, people who do not understand this create this extreme hype... it's not even correct to call it stupid because in the low level functionality of AI today "clever" doesn't exist (that's built into the upper layers that don't exist in artificial NN).
The latest AI is powerful because we can directly manipulate the design of a relatively tiny network that do relatively basic things, making them do what we want can be attributed to the cleverne
Re: (Score:2)
The latest AI is powerful because we can directly manipulate the design of a relatively tiny network that do relatively basic things
The funny thing is that the latest AI isn't fundamentally different than the AI in the 80's that didn't work. We've made a few small improvements in the function, but most of the progress has been made by increasing the size of the networks.
This is where the hype begins, there is a galactic sized space between this infinitesimal functionality and the network of networks of networks of networks of networks that make up something remotely conscious and "smart" in the inventive, creative and insightful sense that we think of humans being smart.
It's possible that we only have to make a few more small improvements, and a further increase of the network size to achieve that. That's how our brains evolved from small rodents to us.
Isn't all of this just BS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm I missing something or all of this (news about AI taking over) is just BS?
Almost as bad as a "Terminator" type of rebellion : https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ [xkcd.com]
Yeah we see a lot of breakthrough in "AI" technologies (AI beat GO champion last year, AI got better to identify skin cancer this year), but as far as I understand AI, it's basically plugging the program to a (insanely huge) database about the subject and help him interpolate the input and it's own data. That's computer program getting better, not getting "intelligent".
Or is my definition of "AI" that off the mark? I mean, for me intelligence implies some sort of "conscience" that can make decision "outside the box". No matter how fancy the GO of dermatologist AI get, they will never do more than their field because they are not programmed to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, for me intelligence implies some sort of "conscience" that can make decision "outside the box".
People don't make decisions outside the box. Some people just have a big box.
Re: (Score:3)
but as far as I understand AI, it's basically plugging the program to a (insanely huge) database about the subject and help him interpolate the input and it's own data
Alphago is also a huge tree-searching algorithm, with tremendous processing power. The real question is, how do you know your brain does something more advanced than that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as far as I understand AI, it's basically plugging the program to a (insanely huge) database about the subject and help him interpolate the input and it's own data. That's computer program getting better, not getting "intelligent". Or is my definition of "AI" that off the mark?
Well it depends on how much you consider "MacGyver" style problem solving to be intelligent. As in I have a task to complete, I have a bunch of random items that can be combined/used in some way to produce a non-obvious result. Computers are great a combinatorics even to the point where they might do something that's original and never been done by a human. A lot of what humans consider creative is putting together known things in unexpected ways, or at least that this particular person has never done befor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AI's were beating people in tic-tac-toe in the 1960w.
Well yeah, but anyone with a minimum experience can play equally and not lose. There's only that many combinations of tic tac toe.
If you want an early field where computer destroyed the human, you best bet will be the calculator.
knowledge vs intelligence (Score:2)
These 'artificial intelligence' devices are trained by giving them examples so that they can learn to recognize certain items/situations, etc. Show a neural net 100,000 pictures of various dogs, and eventually it will be good at recognizing pictures of dogs. Thus they acquire knowledge, but have they become intelligent?
Intelligence involves responding appropriately to a novel situation. Extrapolating from often vastly different experiences in some cases, or simply total innovation. This is what intelligence
Re: (Score:2)
Show it an upside down dog...
No (Score:2)
No. More like in 300 years considering the "progress" in AI. We are good at creating highly specialized algorithms for completing certain tasks. We have nothing generic which can function and solve never seen before tasks completely on its own.
What's more we still have no idea what intelligence and consciousness are. AI is certainly a buzzword today considering the number of recent films [wikipedia.org] dedicated to it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. More like in 300 years considering the "progress" in AI.
The progress on AI in the last 10 years was more than the 290 years before that. And Moore's law is far from dead. Just look at what our brain can do, and they're made from milk and sandwiches.
Re: (Score:2)
The progress on AI in the last 10 years was more than the 290 years before that.
I don't think that's true. The algorithms we are using were mostly invented before 2007. Deep learning merely means taking those algorithms and applying incredible computing power to them.
And Moore's law is far from dead.
That seems to be true. Although CPUs have been largely stagnant, GPUs have been jumping dramatically in performance still. And that's where the processing power comes from.
Re: (Score:2)
The algorithms we are using were mostly invented before 2007. Deep learning merely means taking those algorithms and applying incredible computing power to them.
I didn't mean to imply that the algorithms were novel, just that the results have exploded. And now that we know we're on the right path, progress will continue by exploiting specialized hardware for this particular function, instead of using general purpose computers.
Re: (Score:2)
progress will continue by exploiting specialized hardware for this particular function
Is someone building specialized hardware for that? Last I checked it was still all just GPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
false, all branches of AI were done in the 1960s and before. There is nothing of significance that has been done for decades other than having more RAM and faster CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding more hardware is a large part of the recent progress, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have already built an hippocampal prosthesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampal_prosthesis [wikipedia.org]
You might also look into memristors, which show some promise as artificial neurons far more effective than simulating them with transistors.
Neurology is also starting to crawl out of the dark ages, and a renaissance there will immediately spill over to AI research.
It may turn out that we don't have to figure out how it works if we can 'simply' build a replica of a biological model in silicon... thoug
Re: (Score:2)
It may turn out that we don't have to figure out how it works if we can 'simply' build a replica of a biological model in silicon
The chances of building a mind without understanding how minds work seems lower than building a functioning rocket without understanding physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Our minds have evolved naturally without anybody understanding how they work. Functioning rockets have not.
Re: (Score:2)
To be a little clearer - we have an evolution-provided brain model to copy, we did not have an evolution-provided rocket model to copy.
I can copy Kanji without understanding the meaning of what I'm copying... or even the basic rules of grammar. However, I'm not going to be able to write a new novel in Japanese.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eliza... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet psychologists, but we do have AIs that can analyze mammograms better than human doctors.
Re:Eliza... (Score:4, Insightful)
And we also have AI's that can land passenger planes better than pilots (on clear days with smooth air). The commonality with mammogram analysis is not intelligence, but attentiveness. Analyzers get tired of looking at the same gray squiggly lines and miss stuff. Pilot's get lazy after a 10 mile stabilized approach that looks exactly it did the last 50 times she flew into the same airport.
Computers aren't smart, but they don't get lazy.
The Ignorance of Denial. (Score:2)
(Claim in 1939) "We're going to put a man on the moon within 30 years."
(Society in 1939) "What a fucking moron. That will never happen."
Since the feedback here is essentially the same as it would have been in Society circa 1939, perhaps we should re-think the ignorance of automatically denying this claim, or dismissing Mr. Son as some kind of idiot. You would have been fucking wrong to do so in 1939.
What does the next 30 years bring? I'd say we can't even dream what may be possible. 30 years ago, t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if Mr Son is right or wrong, but he doesn't seem to be an expert on the matter, so his is just another opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
30 years ago, the internet didn't exist
If you are so wrong about this, how can you be correct about your other assertions?
Already Here (Score:2)
but humans ARE robots (Score:2)
Work 50+ years to enrich/empower the government, and are exactly told what to think by the media? puhlease we are already robots.
There's been some miscommunication. (Score:2)
"Robots" is just what he calls the custodial crew. ;)
circular logic 101 (Score:2)
If the bar is the IQ of someone who presently thinks this is the way IQ works, he's probably right.
History in the making.... (Score:2)
October 21, 2051, the ratio of synthetic to organic beings in the united states stood at nearly 10:1, in other less developed countries, it stood closer to 25:1. Fearing a repeat of the robotic riots of 2038, (which very nearly destroyed the entirety of the recently annexed New California Republic) the newly reformed United Nations ratified the doomed "Humanity First Treaty", which aimed to place the basic needs of organic humans above those of our synthetic counter-parts.
Within days, robotic and synthetic
Smarter than CEOs (Score:2)
AI is not "computers" (Score:2)
Re:Enough (Score:4, Funny)
"Up next: Elon Musk tells us about a dump he took."
Holy Shit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Up next: Elon Musk tells us about a dump he took."
Holy Shit.
No, you're thinking of "The Pope Just Took a Dump and You Should See What the College of Cardinals is Thinking"!
Elon Musk's Article was "Amazing Shit"
Re: (Score:2)
If shoes have computers in them, at some point it will be cheaper to put computers in them that are smarter than us. Even a fairly dumb shoe understands this.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where the "outnumber" in the title of TFA came from. The link never bothered to mention the number of robots, though it might have been sorta implied by the comment about our sneakers having more intelligence than us by then...
If I were guessing, I'd guess someone mistranslated a word, and out "editors" didn't catch the mistranslation....
62 Comments and no Mention of Skynet! (Score:2)
You Young Whipper Snappers don't have a clue about evil A.I.!
Re: (Score:2)