I am realizing that there is this assumption that robots, AI OSs and variants are gonna work. Well I used to run a live website and working with webmistress realized for starters that codes self corrupt. so no reliability there. then there is human interpretation. some experts simply could not comprehend simple instructions and often to hide their ignorance came back with gobbly-gook speech obfuscation. It took a while to find the right expert. Even then things always went wrong. So future AI is all fantasy as it stands now. Which means a lot of these conversations are fantasy not fact. To give but 2 more examples.
I left Twitter but they could not delete me in a month! I re-de-activated myself again. So here we have a system that can’t delete information. Another example was Flash-Player which had a security hole [even that in itself shows how hopeless this AI endeavour is. So I deleted the old unstable copy and uploaded the new safe one. Except my computer lost the upload file. Which I found by accident. [Again the implications for running AIs] and finished the upload. But then the Flash-Player videos wouldn’t open and play. So here we had vanishing replacement codes. The player worked the day after.
The point is that whilst this book is interesting it is about that and no more. The conversations are useless because what happened here couldn’t have happened in isolation. I am surely not the only one.
Different pieces of software have different quality. Websites are usually on the crappy end of the scale. Central parts of operating systems are towards the opposite end. Also, many commercial products are developed with little testing. But there are methodologies for better testing, even mathematical proofs of correctness. Those are usually not used in commercial development, because they require some time and qualification, and companies prefer to hire cheap coders and have the product soon, even if it is full of bugs. And generally, because software companies are usually managed Dilbert-style.
However, it is possible to have mathematical proofs about algorithm correctness (any decent university teaches these methods as parts of informatics), so in these debates it is usually assumed that people who would develop an AI would use these methods.
To a person who knows this, your comment sounds a bit like: “my childhood toy broke easily, therefore it is impossible to ever build a railway that would not fall apart below the weight of a train”.
I am realizing that there is this assumption that robots, AI OSs and variants are gonna work. Well I used to run a live website and working with webmistress realized for starters that codes self corrupt. so no reliability there. then there is human interpretation. some experts simply could not comprehend simple instructions and often to hide their ignorance came back with gobbly-gook speech obfuscation. It took a while to find the right expert. Even then things always went wrong. So future AI is all fantasy as it stands now. Which means a lot of these conversations are fantasy not fact. To give but 2 more examples. I left Twitter but they could not delete me in a month! I re-de-activated myself again. So here we have a system that can’t delete information. Another example was Flash-Player which had a security hole [even that in itself shows how hopeless this AI endeavour is. So I deleted the old unstable copy and uploaded the new safe one. Except my computer lost the upload file. Which I found by accident. [Again the implications for running AIs] and finished the upload. But then the Flash-Player videos wouldn’t open and play. So here we had vanishing replacement codes. The player worked the day after. The point is that whilst this book is interesting it is about that and no more. The conversations are useless because what happened here couldn’t have happened in isolation. I am surely not the only one.
Different pieces of software have different quality. Websites are usually on the crappy end of the scale. Central parts of operating systems are towards the opposite end. Also, many commercial products are developed with little testing. But there are methodologies for better testing, even mathematical proofs of correctness. Those are usually not used in commercial development, because they require some time and qualification, and companies prefer to hire cheap coders and have the product soon, even if it is full of bugs. And generally, because software companies are usually managed Dilbert-style.
However, it is possible to have mathematical proofs about algorithm correctness (any decent university teaches these methods as parts of informatics), so in these debates it is usually assumed that people who would develop an AI would use these methods.
To a person who knows this, your comment sounds a bit like: “my childhood toy broke easily, therefore it is impossible to ever build a railway that would not fall apart below the weight of a train”.