jony0

wizard69 said:

macky the macky said:

The unique value to ARM is how well it performs in power-constrained mobile devices. That advantage is lost on desktop devices along with the needful Intel compatibility. It would take some new puzzle-piece to fall into place to make moving to ARM with OSX compelling.

The need for i86 compatibility isn't anywhere near as strong as it was in the past.
…
Totally unrelated but this new forums software sucks.   I mean it really SUCKS.   Did the AI staff even try this crap out before the conversion?  

NeSXTSTEP was developed for the Motorola 68030 in the 80s, then ported to Intel in the 90s, then evolved into OS X on the PowerPC, then ported to Intel in 2005 (officially, yet I think it was in the labs well before that) and finally evolved into iOS on ARM in 2008, watchOS on an S1 SoC in 2014 and tvOS in 2015. It would be rather trivial to port OS X on ARM, especially with the new ARM 64-bit architecture and instruction set and Apple engineered customizations. As for Windows compatibility, the R in ARM is RISC, so although it would not be quite as efficient as the real thing, it could run Intel CISC instructions fairly well, certainly much more efficiently than in emulation mode. And yet, remember Rosetta ? It sure didn't feel all that sluggish for Intel processors to emulate PowerPC code.
…
Oh, and yes this forums software sucks, although not as bad as Fortune. I type it in TextEdit and copy paste it here, spell check works better and I don't lose whole posts accidentally.

suddenly newton said:

apple ][ said:

Where are all of these first time posters coming from? Has this article been linked to someplace else?

I doubt that they found their way here, all by themselves.

They won't be back. Their job is to repeat the same appeal-to-fear-so-lets-give-the-FBI-what-they-want arguments. For all we know it's the same person working for the same government agency. If by chance some are real people, I wish they would engage in a real discussion instead of doing a drive-by and leave.

I hope they won't be back as they have clearly demonstrated that they can barely write, let alone engage in a real discussion. It's quite possible they came from the same government agency or maybe agencies, as the Chinese must be salivating at this double-whammy : an iPhone backdoor as yet another tool to spy on their citizens and a great business opportunity for their own phone manufacturers. Judging by their poor command of english they could also have been sent here by their paymaster Samsung just to … well just to be shit heads I guess or maybe gloating at the prospect that iPhones could soon be as insecure by government mandated design as Sammy's own devices have been by sheer incompetence.

maestro64 said:

jony0 said:

I trust that the AI manufacturers and the NHTSA will go over a lot of case scenarios and testing before certifying every single AI car design. To answer your question in particular I would imagine that the obstacle avoidance algorithms would have to and will be able to detect whether it is human or otherwise by assessing size and speed and general physical attributes, assess if the other lane is oncoming traffic and free to go around the obstacle while immediately applying all braking schemes available and avoid only if it's safe to do so. As for Bambi specifically, I live in deer country and am always mindful of my dad's early advice to slam the brakes immediately, brace yourself for impact and stay in your lane unless absolutely sure, there have been too many stories here of people going in the ditch or in oncoming traffic and killing themselves to avoid wildlife. I would certainly hope this would also be the chosen algorithm.

Yeah you would hope, unless it is a person who jump out verse an animal. Then it kills you verse the stupid person who jump out in front of your car. The problem is there are so many scenarios they can not cover them all. Like their is a person on the road crossing illegally and on coming traffic the other way, and innocent pedestrian standing to your right, who gets killed.  Keep in mind, we humand have a ability to forgive someone for an unavoidable accident and they do happen, but we humand do not extend that forgiveness to objects and less so to companies of those objects. This is the paradigm we are dealing with and designers of these kinds of systems fail to understand, they just think it neat to allow a car drive itself. Also remember these systems were developed by the miliary and they are in the business of killing people so they did not worry about collateral damage, they did not want US soilder being killed.

BTW, i was not looking for someone like you to answer I was looking for Google and other companies involved in this technolog to tell me who dies in these cases. Unless Google can tell me who dies I am interested in putting my faith in them to get it right in all cases and guess what, I bet I would change my mind on what is acceptable as time goes on.

I responded (Reply 37) to one of your previous comments while you typed this one so I’ll try not to repeat myself too much here. As I’ve mentioned, and alandail as well, the AI is an order of magnitude faster, probably more. Whatever the circumstance, the computer will outperform us by a wide margin, that is an undeniable fact. The problem is not that they can't cover all scenarios, because neither can we. In your pedestrian example, you ask a question (who gets killed) that no one can answer with the simple conditions stated, we can only prioritize options and execute the best possible outcome of varying scenarios of speed, distance, traction, visibility and so on. What we can answer is that the machine will analyze with better precision most of these parameters and will certainly execute much faster. What you’re really asking is if sensors will be able to be as good as our senses and if AI can apply the same priorities that we would. I am quite confident that both will be as good and will have to be up to the task before these vehicles are certified.

If an accident is truly unavoidable, then there is nothing to forgive, shit happens. Keep in mind that if it was avoidable. not all humans have your ability to forgive a human more than a company and I suspect that it would make no difference to most people who would be litigious to sue whomever or whatever is responsible regardless. If your neighbour accidentally shot you, do you really have that ability to forgive him but not forgive the gun and its manufacturer ?

I have not had the privilege of speaking to any designers of these kinds of systems so I won’t speak for them, but I disagree with your assumption that they fail to understand the value of human life and that their endeavours are simply because they think it’s neat. And contrary to popular belief and cynicism the military is not in the business of killing people, but to protect the ones who sent them, sometimes by killing bad people. That’s irrelevant anyway, since there are many technologies initiated with military funds but crossed over to civilian peaceful applications.

BTW I can’t speak for Google or other AI developers and although I understand that you weren’t expecting an answer from me, I would think that their purpose is to save lives first if at all possible, if not, minimize casualties, just like us humans would want to do, only much more efficiently.

maestro64 said:

SpamSandwich said:

If you were a non-vehicle operating passenger in an autonomous vehicle that you did not own, it'd be no different from you taking a cab.

If you owned the vehicle, presumably you'd still need insurance.

Going back to my question which no one seems to be willing to answer, will the car kill you to save bambi, if so who pays

I trust that the AI manufacturers and the NHTSA will go over a lot of case scenarios and testing before certifying every single AI car design. To answer your question in particular I would imagine that the obstacle avoidance algorithms would have to and will be able to detect whether it is human or otherwise by assessing size and speed and general physical attributes, assess if the other lane is oncoming traffic and free to go around the obstacle while immediately applying all braking schemes available and avoid only if it's safe to do so. As for Bambi specifically, I live in deer country and am always mindful of my dad's early advice to slam the brakes immediately, brace yourself for impact and stay in your lane unless absolutely sure, there have been too many stories here of people going in the ditch or in oncoming traffic and killing themselves to avoid wildlife. I would certainly hope this would also be the chosen algorithm.

mr. h said:

AppleInsider said:

Night Shift is a first-of-its-kind tool

What? You guys are drinking something funny over at AI HQ. First we have yesterday's dire Surface Pro bashing article, and now this?

f.lux. Heard of it?

Yes of course AI has heard of it :
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-nixes-ios-version-of-popular-brightness-management-tool-flux
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/11/apple-adds-night-mode-secure-notes-more-in-ios-93
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/14/flux-says-it-is-original-innovator-of-nighttime-display-color-tech-asks-apple-to-open-night-shift-api

 Just back from vacation ?