snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Techno-Babble

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11 May 2018, 05:58 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 601
Icon05

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
I really don't know why ChasFink thinks that a human is less likely to make that mistake than an AI.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the game, Richard W, but the Final Jeopardy! category is certainly on the mind of the human contestants, as they have to make a wager based on their chances of answering a question in that category; in most cases the outcome of the whole game depends on it. I sincerely doubt most of the well-educated American and Canadian contestants would guess Toronto as a U.S. city - the screening process on the show, which I have done the first step of, is fairly strong. You'd also expect any contestant with rapid access to many reference "books" (which Watson did) to know Toronto is not a U.S. City, and rule it out.

I did guess the correct city in the time allotted, and surely would not have guessed Toronto even if I knew about its airports.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11 May 2018, 11:44 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,492
Spit Take

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
There is a pretty clearly defined definition of "AI" in the AI computer science community.
yomank!

Anyway, by that definition, servers and services have employed AI for many years. So, outrage delayed, I suppose.

ETA By the way, where did you get that particular definition? Just honestly curious. I promise not to make it some kind of rhetorical point.

Last edited by ganzfeld; 11 May 2018 at 11:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12 May 2018, 03:35 AM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,424
Default

There we go. The official definition of AI is a computer so advanced that it has an opinion on what exactly constitutes AI.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12 May 2018, 03:52 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,492
Default

Finally something it's really useful for!

The scope of AI is kind of a 50 year running joke in computer science, as described in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article, which begins "The scope of AI is disputed..." and ends by including intelligent content delivery routing as an example of AI. What's content delivery? Online services exactly like we're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12 May 2018, 02:52 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
There we go. The official definition of AI is a computer so advanced that it has an opinion on what exactly constitutes AI.
I've for some time considered the possibility that a good definition of "human" might be "the creature who gets into discussions about how to define 'human.'"

It's of course possible that this might include some beings who aren't members of the species that somewhat implausibly calls itself "homo sapiens".
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 13 May 2018, 07:13 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Finally something it's really useful for!

The scope of AI is kind of a 50 year running joke in computer science, as described in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article, which begins "The scope of AI is disputed..." and ends by including intelligent content delivery routing as an example of AI. What's content delivery? Online services exactly like we're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
AI has a long history of identifying problems and calling them "AI". Then, when the problem is solved by a computer it is no longer "AI". A few examples; optical character recognition, handwriting translation, face recognition, language to language translation (e.g., English to German), playing chess, etc.

If we don't know how to get a computer to do it we call it is often called "AI". When we figure out how to get a computer to do it it generally is no longer considered AI.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 13 May 2018, 08:11 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,492
Default

Well, exactly. Now we can add to that growing list "making agreements with humans on the phone". (Actually, despite the OP hype, I'm pretty sure that line was crossed at least five if not ten years ago.)
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 14 May 2018, 04:18 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Well, exactly. Now we can add to that growing list "making agreements with humans on the phone". (Actually, despite the OP hype, I'm pretty sure that line was crossed at least five if not ten years ago.)
That is an unsettled legal question. I would bet that any agreement between a human and an AI via a phone call would not stand up as a valid contract in court. A computer can not enter into a contract (neither can a dog, or a barn, or a ...). Amazon and other ecommerce companies (internet stock traders, ...) all have TOS that both parties agree to. The AI doesn't agree, the user of the AI agrees.

"AI" has been spectacularly successful in a number of areas. It just isn't called AI once it works.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 14 May 2018, 04:26 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,823
Default

Here is an intersting twist on if a computer can enter into a binding contract;
http://theconversation.com/that-cont...gal-bind-94583

We could get situations where a contract, embedded in a blockchain/cryptocurrency, is not legally binding but the nature of cryptocurrency means financial laws really don't apply like they used to. If the block chain says you are to transfer money then it gets transferred in the chain and that can't really be undone? Not by the parties involved and not by financial regulators?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 14 May 2018, 05:13 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,835
Default

Currently, money is considered fungible. Unless that changes, the law will still be able to say who should have the money, and order another party to pay it over.

The difference, as I see it, would be that if the money is in a typical bank account, party A can make the bank pay it over even if party B is not cooperating, once party A has a judgment. If no one can make the block chain do anything without party B's cooperation, that would be a little different, but pretty much equal to certain kinds of offshore accounts. Party A can still get to the money when party B either puts some in the bank, or makes purchases. So, it would be a pain to collect from some people, but not from big corporations that move money through financial institutions regularly, own property, etc.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of interesting and vexing legal problems in this area. But that one doesn't seem so new to me.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 14 May 2018, 05:30 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,424
Default

How would the courts handle someone who is known to have a large amount of cash somewhere or in a non-complaint offshore bank, but refuses to pay a judgement? I'm guessing some variation of imprisonment for refusing to comply with a court order to pay the judgement?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 14 May 2018, 07:00 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
That is an unsettled legal question.
It really isn't at all for the vast majority of agreements. Probably one of the oldest legal precedents in history is that a person can make an agreement with others based on an interaction with a non-human instrument. That basic method has survived every technological change from cuneiform to One-Click shopping. What really matters is what the person interacting with the instrument understands as the agreement and does to show their agreement, whether that's pressing their own seal in the clay or answering "yes" to a robot on the phone. (Yes, it has always been the case that certain kinds of agreement require both human parties to be present - sometimes witnesses and jurists as well. I doubt that will change after 3000 years, either. But it has nothing to do with this kind of interaction.)
Quote:
"AI" has been spectacularly successful in a number of areas. It just isn't called AI once it works.
Well, again, exactly. This case is not likely to be any different and, since it won't even be considered AI, the question you pose will be moot. However, its is an extremely non-controversial legal matter to begin with.
(IANAL)
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 14 May 2018, 07:49 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
It really isn't at all for the vast majority of agreements. Probably one of the oldest legal precedents in history is that a person can make an agreement with others based on an interaction with a non-human instrument.
That is a fallacious argument. A person can make a contract with another person (or group of persons) via a non-human instrument (e.g., a piece of signed paper). That does not address the issue of if an agreement (contract) between a person and a non-human is legally binding.

All of the examples you have presented have ignored the existence of a TOS. Two parties can agree to interact and agree in any manner they both agree on. But one of those parties entering into the agreement cannot be a bus, or a barn or a computer. In the absence of a TOS (or similar agreement, which by the way is between people and not a person and a machine), I can see no legal precedence for a contract between a person and a machine.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 14 May 2018, 10:17 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,492
Default

Unless there are robots out there making their own contracts without some company or person behind them, again, your question is moot.

AI aside, whether a person can enter a contract or agreement or understanding with a non-human, again, the question already settled for a very long time and, again, a large portion (if not a vast majority) of contracts are between a human and a non-human entity (sometimes also considered a 'legal person') known as a corporation.

Whether robots can have their own corporations (without human owners) is an intersting legal question but I don't think we're quite there yet.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 15 May 2018, 09:19 PM
Hans Off's Avatar
Hans Off Hans Off is offline
 
Join Date: 14 May 2004
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 4,419
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
I wonder if, possibly, they are referring to the ethics of inventing technology with the potential of fulfilling the job duties that an actual human used to be paid to do? I've noticed quite a bit of rumbling from various sources worried about the robots taking people's jobs, and there are still a bunch of folk out there who work in assistant capacities which includes doing things like making appointments (although I find it unlikely that those who employ such workers are going to replace their human assistants with virtual ones).
That is a concern but the impression I have been getting from those flying the unspecified moral or ethical flag, it is not that. more to do with “creepy human imitating phone calls”

That’s not to say that the robots/jobs issue does not exist, I predict this will be the death (or added efficiency) of outbound call centres. Ten’s of thousands of cold calls can be made and only those that pass a specified gateway in the conversation will need to be completed by a human call handler.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PICTURES: See stunning Stockholm from the sky Floater SLC 0 13 September 2013 08:44 AM
Urine-powered mobile phone charger lets you spend a penny to make a call A Turtle Named Mack Techno-Babble 2 17 July 2013 03:12 PM
Help needed making a smart phone comparison Morrigan Techno-Babble 9 04 February 2013 09:15 AM
Phone scams up despite do-not-call registry snopes Crime 0 20 August 2009 04:29 AM
Best man: Assistant Bridenapper? Lisa Old Wives' Tales 5 27 August 2007 12:46 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.