LogFAQs > #952699371

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Controversial Opinion #4: Automation
LinkPizza 04/10/21 11:27:01 PM #132:	darkknight109 posted... I'm a classically-trained concert-level pianist (though I haven't played in years), so take my word for it - what the better AI musicbots produce at this point is pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing. And the fact that you - someone without a major backing in music - couldn't immediately jump up and say, "That sounds awful/fake/like a machine made it" is more or less proof positive that it's doing its job. Even if the best musical ears could still tell it was a robot making it... it's still enough to fool 99.99% of the population. No. I wont. I cant because I dont know anything about you, or have seen others things you have done. Or have proof. Many of them had talked about other things (maybe other videos), or had go to school for it. Ill wait until I can see my BF and talk to him about it As for mentioning it, Im mentioning what the people in the video said. Who I do trust that have a backing in music. So, it wasnt without someone who knew music darkknight109 posted... And you'll note that those places are the ones most likely to have self-serve checkout. Target and Wal-mart? Yeah. They would have more people using them. So they should get more of them Hence why its weird that they dont have more. And there has to be a good reason darkknight109 posted... And many more are not. Which you've already conceded, so I don't know why you're still trying to argue this point. Really? When? I know not all of them do, but many of the ones that Ive seen with a few self-checkouts do have a parent company. Not all, but that doesnt mean many dont have one. darkknight109 posted... Because it's cheaper. You literally just stated the reason yourself. Asking "Why would you buy an iPhone 6 when there's a whatever-the-latest-iPhone-available-now right next to it on the shelf?" is a bit like asking, "Why would you buy a Honda Civic when you could just go down to your local Lamborghini dealer and buy yourself a Huracan?" Except its not in the long run. Thats why its good to take the whole quote. You quote parts of things, and it make things look different. The rest of the quote said, They want the newest model thats better, and would probably still get most parts made for it. Eventually, the older models will most likely break easier, need more maintenance, and parts become scarce earlier They waste money buying something older that breaks more, and uses harder to find parts. So, its only got a cheaper upfront cost. But these self-checkouts are for making more money in the long run. Buying older models is a bad idea in most cases Except those are different. You could buy a current model of a Honda civic. And iPhone 6 still has a headphone jack. Plus, many might not be buying it, but receiving it from insurance. But in this case, youre also going the wrong way. Not only would the Lamborghini have more expensive parts, but the parts might also be more scarce. Wouldnt it be much easier to find Honda civic parts? And for pretty cheap, to boot! darkknight109 posted... There are literally car technologies today that will warn you if it detects signs of you getting sleepy. Those signs are as subtle as taking too long to blink or breathing in a way that suggests you're falling asleep. This is a really bad example for you to pick, because we're not even talking hypothetical tech right now. Here's an NYT article on it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/automobiles/wheels/drowsy-driving-technology.html Of you getting sleepy, but not the other person. Being able to read you and others inside the car is different, hence why I didnt say anything about not recognizing you getting sleepy. Though, even then, it could be wrong. But it depends on what it actually looks for. And its a pretty good example since nothing you said has disproved anything yet I said other people And if the car is self-driving, then the microsleep shouldnt affect much, anyway Though, it sounds like its for manual cars instead of self-driving. It still apparently years away, as well darkknight109 posted... It's not and you've literally just admitted you can't prove it or even support it with any sort of exercise or analysis that's been done to date. You're literally just making up things that have no basis in reality. It's pointless to continue this particular thread of the discussion, because you are now firmly in the realm of fantasy, not reality. Is it very possible, though. Just because I cant prove something doesnt mean its not possible. We cant prove aliens, but its possible, for example. They are many theories that are possible. Or do you not understand the word. Its possible, but unproven. Thats a thing Youre living in a fantasy world if you thing all theories are bad unless they are actually proven darkknight109 posted... Literally everything you just stated is every bit as applicable for humans as AI. Moreso, honestly, given that humans don't have constant 360 degree vision and perfect attention to the road around it. And we've already been over that AI are better in this area. They have cameras and sensors onboard that can pick up what happened and who is at fault far more reliably than a human can. The fact that you've had to contort yourself to concoct an incredibly unlikely scenario wherein a human and an AI are on equal ground - not even where an AI is inferior, but just where it is on equal ground with a human - shows how much better AI are than humans in terms of their behaviour and capabilities regarding accidents. You're couching it in different language, but your argument is essentially that AI have to be perfect or else they're not worth it. That's not the case - they just need to be better than us. Not even in everything, but better overall. And they are - they're less prone to get into accidents, they don't break the law, they don't drive drunk, and they don't get distracted or sleepy while driving. That alone puts them worlds ahead of humans. It is applicable to humans... But the cars are supposed to be better, yeah? And they might not pick up whose fault it is. Or blame it on say a human driver that was in the middle of it. Like the cars all swerve and human in the middle swerves, as well. Now the self-driving car that caused it may think it averted a crash. And the self-driving cars involved in the crash might blame the human driver that moved over Its an easy enough scenario that Im not contorting myself into or concocting. Its happened with humans before, so it does happen Yes. I think they have to be perfect, or why use them? Id rather die by my own hand than by something out of my control like a self-driving vehicles. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:952699371] in Controvers... [t:79384298]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a classically-trained concert-level pianist (though I haven't played in years), so take my word for it - what the better AI musicbots produce at this point is pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing. And the fact that you - someone without a major backing in music - couldn't immediately jump up and say, "That sounds awful/fake/like a machine made it" is more or less proof positive that it's doing its job. Even if the best musical ears could still tell it was a robot making it... it's still enough to fool 99.99% of the population. </quote> No. I wont. I cant because I dont know anything about you, or have seen others things you have done. Or have proof. Many of them had talked about other things (maybe other videos), or had go to school for it. Ill wait until I can see my BF and talk to him about it As for mentioning it, Im mentioning what the people in the video said. Who I do trust that have a backing in music. So, it wasnt without someone who knew music darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>And you'll note that those places are the ones most likely to have self-serve checkout. </quote> Target and Wal-mart? Yeah. They would have more people using them. So they should get more of them Hence why its weird that they dont have more. And there has to be a good reason darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>And many more are not. Which you've already conceded, so I don't know why you're still trying to argue this point.</quote> Really? When? I know not all of them do, but many of the ones that Ive seen with a few self-checkouts do have a parent company. Not all, but that doesnt mean many dont have one. darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Because it's cheaper. You literally just stated the reason yourself. Asking "Why would you buy an iPhone 6 when there's a whatever-the-latest-iPhone-available-now right next to it on the shelf?" is a bit like asking, "Why would you buy a Honda Civic when you could just go down to your local Lamborghini dealer and buy yourself a Huracan?" </quote> Except its not in the long run. Thats why its good to take the whole quote. You quote parts of things, and it make things look different. The rest of the quote said, They want the newest model thats better, and would probably still get most parts made for it. Eventually, the older models will most likely break easier, need more maintenance, and parts become scarce earlier They waste money buying something older that breaks more, and uses harder to find parts. So, its only got a cheaper upfront cost. But these self-checkouts are for making more money in the long run. Buying older models is a bad idea in most cases Except those are different. You could buy a current model of a Honda civic. And iPhone 6 still has a headphone jack. Plus, many might not be buying it, but receiving it from insurance. But in this case, youre also going the wrong way. Not only would the Lamborghini have more expensive parts, but the parts might also be more scarce. Wouldnt it be much easier to find Honda civic parts? And for pretty cheap, to boot! darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>There are literally car technologies today that will warn you if it detects signs of you getting sleepy. Those signs are as subtle as taking too long to blink or breathing in a way that suggests you're falling asleep. This is a really bad example for you to pick, because we're not even talking hypothetical tech right now. Here's an NYT article on it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/automobiles/wheels/drowsy-driving-technology.html</quote> Of you getting sleepy, but not the other person. Being able to read you and others inside the car is different, hence why I didnt say anything about not recognizing you getting sleepy. Though, even then, it could be wrong. But it depends on what it actually looks for. And its a pretty good example since nothing you said has disproved anything yet I said other people And if the car is self-driving, then the microsleep shouldnt affect much, anyway Though, it sounds like its for manual cars instead of self-driving. It still apparently years away, as well darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>It's not and you've literally just admitted you can't prove it or even support it with any sort of exercise or analysis that's been done to date. You're literally just making up things that have no basis in reality. It's pointless to continue this particular thread of the discussion, because you are now firmly in the realm of fantasy, not reality. </quote> Is it very possible, though. Just because I cant prove something doesnt mean its not possible. We cant prove aliens, but its possible, for example. They are many theories that are possible. Or do you not understand the word. Its possible, but unproven. Thats a thing Youre living in a fantasy world if you thing all theories are bad unless they are actually proven darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Literally everything you just stated is every bit as applicable for humans as AI. Moreso, honestly, given that humans don't have constant 360 degree vision and perfect attention to the road around it. And we've already been over that AI are better in this area. They have cameras and sensors onboard that can pick up what happened and who is at fault far more reliably than a human can. The fact that you've had to contort yourself to concoct an incredibly unlikely scenario wherein a human and an AI are on equal ground - not even where an AI is inferior, but just where it is on equal ground with a human - shows how much better AI are than humans in terms of their behaviour and capabilities regarding accidents. You're couching it in different language, but your argument is essentially that AI have to be perfect or else they're not worth it. That's not the case - they just need to be better than us. Not even in everything, but better overall. And they are - they're less prone to get into accidents, they don't break the law, they don't drive drunk, and they don't get distracted or sleepy while driving. That alone puts them worlds ahead of humans. </quote> It is applicable to humans... But the cars are supposed to be better, yeah? And they might not pick up whose fault it is. Or blame it on say a human driver that was in the middle of it. Like the cars all swerve and human in the middle swerves, as well. Now the self-driving car that caused it may think it averted a crash. And the self-driving cars involved in the crash might blame the human driver that moved over Its an easy enough scenario that Im not contorting myself into or concocting. Its happened with humans before, so it does happen Yes. I think they have to be perfect, or why use them? Id rather die by my own hand than by something out of my control like a self-driving vehicles. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1