There are different kinds of A.I. and the apex is autonomous behavior. Current A.I. does not reason, learn, or problem-solve. It is mostly an aggregator algorithm that can plagiarize based on verbal constraints, but no conceptualization. A.I. generated artwork, for example, will be persuasive up to the point where you notice odd details, like people having 6 fingers or 3 eyes. It is constructing a sensory montage, not governed by any conceptual framework.
But you were touting A.I. as an infallible autopilot, so you should be willing to see MCAS as a refutation. It was trying to solve the problem of preventing unwanted pitch-up. I was a member of the program review team. That's a fact. You don't gain any ground by fantasizing what I may or may not have done, and then accuse me of being a liar---without any evidence.
I have also been involved in the design of automatic space-based missile defense systems, where autonomous behavior turns out to be indispensable to system success (identification and tracking of targets, and solving an interceptor-target assignment schedule). I have done work in artificial perception (target-vs-decoy discrimination), which is preliminary to artificial concept-formation. There are many steps toward the creation of an artificial mind. A.I. isn't there.
And you have a problem of realism. The MCAS software was essentially straightforward, but it killed two aircraft loads of crew and passengers before Boeing got the message it was unsafe (after first blaming the pilots). But you are saying that something orders of magnitude more complicated is going to work perfectly?
I had been instancing MCAS as an example of A.I. not to be trusted and you were alleging I knew nothing about the subject. I am only replying to your statements (see above), off the top of my head, based on my personal experience. It's an art to detect that ChatGPT is fake, but it's something else to conclude that a real person is ChatGPT. This must be the new technique of diverting from the subject under discussion.
You bizarrely think said that AI is an infallible autopilot and that AI should work perfectly, which I did not even remotely imply. I swear to God I'm the only person in this community who isn't a total retard or mentally ill freak.
You are right. I am wrong. I apologize. I got you confused with "megaphraust."
But for the sake of discussion, I approach the topic from the standpoint of developing autonomous systems, ones that you do not have any direct control over. That's where the rubber meets the road in crisis situations. Subordination and authentication become vital concerns. The killer robot with the gun pointed at your chest has to be able to figure out if you are a Good Guy. And if you are, not to shoot you. (Those are separate decisions.)
There are different kinds of A.I. and the apex is autonomous behavior. Current A.I. does not reason, learn, or problem-solve. It is mostly an aggregator algorithm that can plagiarize based on verbal constraints, but no conceptualization. A.I. generated artwork, for example, will be persuasive up to the point where you notice odd details, like people having 6 fingers or 3 eyes. It is constructing a sensory montage, not governed by any conceptual framework.
But you were touting A.I. as an infallible autopilot, so you should be willing to see MCAS as a refutation. It was trying to solve the problem of preventing unwanted pitch-up. I was a member of the program review team. That's a fact. You don't gain any ground by fantasizing what I may or may not have done, and then accuse me of being a liar---without any evidence.
I have also been involved in the design of automatic space-based missile defense systems, where autonomous behavior turns out to be indispensable to system success (identification and tracking of targets, and solving an interceptor-target assignment schedule). I have done work in artificial perception (target-vs-decoy discrimination), which is preliminary to artificial concept-formation. There are many steps toward the creation of an artificial mind. A.I. isn't there.
And you have a problem of realism. The MCAS software was essentially straightforward, but it killed two aircraft loads of crew and passengers before Boeing got the message it was unsafe (after first blaming the pilots). But you are saying that something orders of magnitude more complicated is going to work perfectly?
I have no idea who you think you're replying to. You are replying to statements I never made. Did you use Chat GPT to formulate this reply?
I had been instancing MCAS as an example of A.I. not to be trusted and you were alleging I knew nothing about the subject. I am only replying to your statements (see above), off the top of my head, based on my personal experience. It's an art to detect that ChatGPT is fake, but it's something else to conclude that a real person is ChatGPT. This must be the new technique of diverting from the subject under discussion.
You bizarrely think said that AI is an infallible autopilot and that AI should work perfectly, which I did not even remotely imply. I swear to God I'm the only person in this community who isn't a total retard or mentally ill freak.
You are right. I am wrong. I apologize. I got you confused with "megaphraust."
But for the sake of discussion, I approach the topic from the standpoint of developing autonomous systems, ones that you do not have any direct control over. That's where the rubber meets the road in crisis situations. Subordination and authentication become vital concerns. The killer robot with the gun pointed at your chest has to be able to figure out if you are a Good Guy. And if you are, not to shoot you. (Those are separate decisions.)