Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
Yep.
Bixby isn't gone yet but this is a very bad sign...
Another article online says this:
I'm not sure how they came up with this percentage estimates of what might happen but, unless Google is going to do something to make their assistant sufficiently more advanced & integrated into the system, then 50% of these outcomes are extremely bad.
...& it's arguable that they're bad even if Google's assistant leaps ahead of Bixby in development because the loss of choice is bad for consumers & citizens.
This was also in that second article that I looked up:
I am glad that I am not the only one that thinks this - though, what's more important is that the right people, who have influence & control over the tech distribution, think this ...and aren't evily chuckling to themselves as they make it happen.
Bixby can potentially make it so that you can connect your phone to any app or service & get your phone to do anything with the proper voice-commands and user-configuration of the methods which the phone will automatically follow when it receives those voice commands.
The user-applications of this feature are nearly endless but an important one is being able to send text messages to important people in your life, somewhat covertly by saying something about some "Bigsby" person (it's a good last name) in order to alert them that you might be in a bad situation & need some help. (All done with your voice - no need to touch anything.)
You can not do this with Google, it's too dang obvious what you're doing if you say something about "Google" casually in conversation with someone who might be willing to harm you.
it's probably better now then when I tried using one back a year or two ago but meh ... for me they seem to not do anything new that you can't do with a keyboard.
Sure but inhuman can mean a lot of things.
Your cat (or dog, or bird), toaster, & automobiles are inhuman.
Bugs Bunny, Dora the Explorer, & all non-cosplay portrayals of Elsa from Frozen are inhuman.
All non-cosplay portrayals of Master Chief, Luigi, & Lara Croft are also inhuman.
People have been using images that evoke human ideas for things that aren't really human... that aren't really your loyal friend that has no ulterior motives ...for a long time.
It's a little odd that it's only NOW becoming a concern now that it's a machine puppeting the portrayal, rather than just a corporation trying to sell you Mickey Mouse vitamins, pellets or flakes that are "part of a complete breakfast" & possibly "GRRRREAT!", & Iron Man vacation tickets that are "sure to make you feel better". ...and its code was still written by a corporation - though, there's a stark difference between an advertisement ...and a tool.
...let's not forget the "creepiest" of all, something which is always listening... always has been listening... and has always had ill-intentions... [some of the] other humans.
You can't tell just by looking at any of them what their intentions are or how trustworthy or helpful they may be - you have to understand them to know any of that.
Machine OR human, if it fools you into thinking that you can trust it because of its appearance - that assumption could be your downfall. Likewise, either of them could also be helpful.
You totally missed the point. Cortana and Alexa are not female. They might as well have a death bot voice for all that they are. Inhuman fabrication of a pretence at human female.The cat (or dog, or bird), toaster, & automobiles are what they are no pretence.
What has cosplay and fictional characters got to do with anything? The potential death bot A.I. playing as a fictional women is not the same as some dude Cosplaying at Master Chief. Watch Ex Machina you will get the point.
You totally missed the point. Elsa and Lara Croft are not female. They might as well have a car-salesman voice for all that they are: Inhuman fabrications of a pretense at female. Even the other humans are not what they are with no pretense.
What has a potential death bot A.I. got to do with anything? The autonomous features in "smart" phones that react to voice commands is not the same as some all-seeing artificial superintelligence. Watch Person of Interest, you will get the point.
Elsa/Lara are not algorithmic constructs like Cortana/Alexa. No you still missed the point again. I watched Person of Interest. Two A.I. end up having a cold war using human agents. That is creepy and foreboding for sure.
A fictional character in a video game is not creepy and it is totally different scenario. Cortana and Alexa are creepy. They might as well as have the voices of a death bot for all they are.
Why is the human male attracted to the A.I. machine in Ex Machina, because it larps as a female woman. Cortana, Alexa are human larping. They are the first generation which will lead to what? Oh other more complex gens. Humans will be so used to human female larping A.I. they won't question it like guy in Ex Machina. Creepy and foreboding for sure.
The voice & 3D avatars of Elsa/Lara are not inherently "death bot AIs" just like Cortana/Samsung Sam. No you still missed the point(s) again.
In order for an AI to be dangerous, it has to both be self-learning (which [most likely] these digital assistants are not) and also an A.I. in the first place (which these digital assistants are not).
However, the code for a self-learning AI could be placed in any digital system, such as a smart thermostat, a robot body, just a network of servers somewhere, or as a character in a video game.
The mascot doesn't make the AI - it doesn't even need a mascot.
The same way that "the suit does not make the man".
Do you really think an AI with ill-intent would be so obvious, anyways?
Why do you think Re-captcha now shows you images of things that are very similar but distinctly different?
Do you really think that's to stop bots ...or perhaps, rather, to train them?
Who or WHAT exactly do you think that information is going to?
...and do you have any idea how it's being used? Information is EVERYWHERE!
A mascot is not creepy (maybe creepy-looking but not creepy) and it is a totally different scenario. Elsa and Lara (& Samsung Sam) are tying to sell you something(s). They might as well have the voices of a car-salesman for all they are.
Why is the human male attracted to the "Beautiful Blonde Killer", "Damsel of Death", & a large number of scams (some on-going & some pending prosecution) in real life? Because they larp(ed) as a loyal & trustworthy human-being. Scammers & serial-killers (& there's plenty of female ones too) are larping. Humans ARE so used to loyal trustworthy person larping (& everything being on the "honors system") that they often enough don't question it, like the victims & victims families of the previous mentioned killers (as well as scammers). This happens even to this very day... creepy and foreboding for sure.
Machine OR human, you can't tell just by looking at any of them what their intentions are or how trustworthy or helpful they may be - you have to understand them to know any of that.
(If they happen to be more likable than humans - then perhaps its because humans aren't doing a very good job.)
That might not continue to hold true into the future but we got to this point from much more primitive means of fiction & fictitious portrayals trying to appeal to people.
Which is also something that corporations & even other people do with each other, every day, much more deceptively.
All of which is a moot point because whether something is portrayed as fictitious, human, or a machine - even if it ACTUALLY IS A HUMAN... it doesn't mean you can inherently trust it... but it also doesn't inherently mean that it or they are going to harm you either.
This wasn't done with mind-control, you know.
Hence why I say: even if it ACTUALLY IS A HUMAN... it doesn't mean you can inherently trust it.
(but it also doesn't inherently mean that it or they are going to harm you either.)
I told you why you just don't get. Cortana/Alexa are creepy, because what it can lead to. One person is one person and people have limits. We all understand even the worse of those limits. A machine is not bound by the biological frame that is human. It's not on the same plane as human no matter how "human" it larps.
A machine can multitask, connect remotely, processes faster and outlive us. It will be logical, cold and methodical. Our emotions like guilt and/or remorse are produced biologically. A machine "it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead". A.I. will become more sophisticated at larping human.
Everything starts somewhere. Why do you Cortana/Alexa have a default females sounding woman's voice? It's more calming than a male voice or a death bot voice. When we do have sophisticated A.I. killing us off its because we saw then as human and not human larpers.
Look John Connor got killed by the same model T100 in T3, because of his emotional connection to a machine in T2. I'ts already been done in fiction the warning is there already lol.
Yes, it does ...and it didn't start with these digital assistants.
I mean, you're literally talking about "what it can lead to". Look at all the things people have created ...such as these digital assistants. ...and yet you say that "people have limits" when we're talking about both what people can & do create & what comes next? Really?
Cortana/Alexa/Sam aren't responsible for these things being created in the past or future... people are. It didn't start with digital assistants either.
No, it's not but then you should be able to understand quite well that it can deceive you without ever needing to alert you to its existence. Mascots & avatars are merely a formality that humans require in order to understand the world - they are wholly unnecessary.
You don't KNOW what it will or won't be is my key point.
Just like you don't know what another human will or won't be.
Despite being a digital system, you probably don't look at the 3DS or Nintendo Switch & think that there could be a sinister A.I. in there but the system is sufficiently large enough (in terms of memor & processing) & advanced enough, in both scenarios, that with a little rewrite of some of the code & a compact enough self-learning AI that can send & receive data from servers anywhere in the world... one such A.I. could fit in a 3DS or Nintendo Switch too. ...even furnaces & toasters are coming with digital parts these days.
It doesn't function how you think it does just because you look at it and think it does, though.
You have to understand it to know for sure & since so much of programming & digital design is opaque (black box coding) & proprietary & such... it's likely unknowable in most cases. ...however, that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable assessments as to what the technology is actually capable of doing.
Plenty of Machines stop. They only do this when they are maximizers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4jwLwT36M
These digital assistants aren't maximizers. They're not even satisficers.
They're probably not even A.I.
Literally any other app that you download to your phone could have AI in it, it doesn't have to be this one.
Being invisible & unknown is far more useful for imposing your objectives than being deceptive & visible.
Read: "The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 2",
or watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlxuQ7tPgQ
or this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdVC4e6EV4
...and there's plenty more stories like this, including Person of Itnerest, which detail why they don't require people to see the A.I. as human in order for it to do what you're claiming.
So clearly whether it seems human or not isn't actually the crux of the issue.
These digital assistants aren't A.I. & the whole premise of your point is "they'll humanize future technology!" ...no, they won't - other people are going to do that & even if they don't, future technology could still be deceptive but considering corporations & other people deceive us all the time, that's nothing new that we need to be watching out for.