This is actually exactly what happened during the Kyle Rittenhouse case. A lawyer for the defense tried to question video evidence because of AI being used to enhance zoomed shots.
No that was what the mainstream media lied to you about what happened in the rittenhouse case. One of several instances where one could see fake news and straight up lies be spread in real time.
What actually happened was that a police officer testified that using pinch to zoom on his iPhone he saw kyle point his rifle at the first person assaulting him. Mind you we were talking about a cluster of around 5px. The state wanted to use an iPad to show the jury using pinch to zoom that same "evidence" because using proper zooming without an unknown interpolator algorithm the defense using an expert witness showed that this was not the case. No one in that courtroom understood the difference between linear and bicubic interpolation.
The defense did not understand it either so they tried to explain to the judge that the iPad Might use AI to interpolate pixels that aren't there and that the jury should only use the properly scaled video the court provided not an ad hoc pinch to zoom version in an iPad with unknown interpolation.
Thankfully the judge told the state to fuck off with their iPad but the mainstream media used the bad explanation of the defense against kyle when the reality was that the state basically tried to fake evidence live on stream using an iPad to zoom in.
BTW I'm German so I don't have a horse in the political race but I watched the Trial on live stream and saw the fake news come out while watching
The story isn’t “the state tried to fake” but rather the defense tried to get thrown out any image taken by a non analog camera as AI could have added detail where there is none.
I was watching this live for several days. That is not what happened. The defense paid an expert witness to upscale and enhance DIGITAL FOOTAGE using court appropriate tools. The defense never "tried to throw out any image taken by a non analog camera". They themselves USED DIGITAL FOOTAGE for their defense. I am sorry but you have been lied to by the media.
It was accurate in the sense that the lawyer used the word ai. In context the lawyer said "Apple uses logarithms (sic) and AI to enhance the images. I don't know how that works". The word AI was used but in context the non-technical lawyer simply meant image enhancing algorithms. No one in that room actually discussed AI.
That being said, one could interpret the top comment that way.
It’s funny, twenty years ago I was specifically told not to use digital cameras but the crappy disposable film camera provided in case of an accident precisely because the digital version could be contested in court.
I experienced something like this recently. I struggled to grasp linear algebra when I took it in undergrad and as a result was always intimidated by the subject. Now, years later, I'm taking a course in graphics and naturally needing to relearn linear algebra and suddenly everything just clicks.
Having practiced submission wrestling and bjj for years - it is incredible strenous and requires conditioning to handle at all.
Judo, with it’s focus on grappling standing up is ridiculously hard on the body, and is not something you just pick up late in life and chill with. You’d break in all sorts of ways.
Carmack seems to have a serious interest, starting with wrestling in highschool.
> My wife for Christmas once got me a year of privates with Carlos Machado which put me up several levels. There was a period there where I’d have Judo with one of my coaches one day, then privates with Carlos the other day.”
While working at Bletchley, Turing, who was a talented long-distance runner, occasionally ran the 40 miles (64 km) to London when he was needed for meetings, and he was capable of world-class marathon standards. Turing tried out for the 1948 British Olympic team, but he was hampered by an injury. His tryout time for the marathon was only 11 minutes slower than British silver medallist Thomas Richards' Olympic race time of 2 hours 35 minutes. He was Walton Athletic Club's best runner, a fact discovered when he passed the group while running alone. When asked why he ran so hard in training he replied:
I have such a stressful job that the only way I can get it out of my mind is by running hard; it’s the only way I can get some release.
That doesn’t say he ran back, to, though. Maybe call that a half-commute?
Alan Turing ran a little while he was at Sherbourne school, usually when football was cancelled because of bad weather. He did not run while an undergraduate at Cambridge, preferring to row, but once he had won his fellowship to King's College he began to run more seriously, his frequent route being from Cambridge to Ely and back, a distance of around 50 km. He did a little running while at Bletchley but only when he moved to the National Physical Laboratory did he take up running more seriously
There was a recent story about the Air Force trying to kill off one of their most cost effective aircraft, whether that's evidence of a "fighter mafia" or not is debatable, but it does show the USAF's proclivity for expensive high-tech over cost effective platforms.
The MQ-9 Reaper is cost effective for counter insurgency missions but it requires reliable high-bandwidth remote control data links to operate. In any conflict with a peer adversary they will shoot down the communications satellites and jam other links, making such drones mostly useless.
My understanding of the use of FPGAs and ASICs that are used to speed up neural networks (such as those in phones) is that they are simply designed to do the types of calculations used for NNs more quickly (matrix operations) and generally at a reduced level of precision.
This is very different from a memristor approach where the structure of the network itself would be represented in the silicon.
I also think it's unfair to compare the two because it took decades of work to get CMOS transistors to where they are today. I imagine that once commercial applications for memristors appear many optimizations/improvements will present themselves.
"the structure of the network itself would be represented in the silicon" -- ASICs then? perhaps even hybrid analog/digital one, where fixed coefficients are stored in digital memory, while input data is analog.
I believe there is a great value in being able to "snapshot" the state and later load exactly the same state into millions of devices. And I cannot see how this will easily work with memristors.
Actually I think there's a reason for this. I took a cognitive science class once where our professor said that many believe that the portion of the brain responsible for recognizing faces is separate from the portion that does all other visual recognition. Perhaps that's why people have a hard time remembering what a face looks like. It's also why some people can lose their ability to recognize faces but can still recognize all other objects.
In "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" the upside down drawing exercise is suggested and i think the reasoning is that people draw facial features as "symbols", resorting to their own idea of what a nose looks like / how to draw a nose rather than drawing what they see. Drawing upside down stops this. Maybe this is related.
there's a strange phenomenon that occurs in some pregnancies where extra bloodflow/pressure on a particular region of the brain causes women to over-identify faces (in electrical sockets, in crumpled laundry, etc.). other visual skills are unaffected.
Actually they have to be significantly safer than driving today. People would rather be unsafe and in control than not in control and a tiny bit safer. I know personally if a self driving car could only drive as well as I could then I'd still want to be the one driving.
People only have the illusion of safety when in control, and are also demonstrably incapable of judging their own ability to perform tasks. Your criterion won't be taken seriously by anyone involved in policy, because this is already well understood.
While I agree with your first sentence, I think you're ignoring the fact that when media get wind of a case like this, it's almost only the irrational opinions of masses that matter. In western democracies, politics - and thus policies - is driven by pandering to the population (and bribes^Wlobbying).
At a certain point the policy question will inevitably be: why should any regular person be even allowed to drive given the superior abilities of the machines? There are certain ideological assumptions that will then have to be debated. Making your own mistakes is a consequence of freedom. Limiting the freedom to make mistakes for the overall benefit to society is not uncontroversial - (see the gun control debate), and contributes to alienation in the Marxist sense of the term. There is more than utility involved here. Just because the trade-off doesn't matter to techno-determinists doesn't mean it it doesn't exist.
Cars are already extremely regulated. You can only drive at speeds dictated by the government in directions dictated by the government, turn in ways prescribed by the government. Your car has to be identifiable in specific ways by the government. You have a lowered expectation of privacy in a car.
I hardly think the argument will be difficult to just prohibit cars.
You can only drive at speeds dictated by the government in directions dictated by the government, turn in ways prescribed by the government
Sure... so you're saying that your steering wheel blocks when you're trying to make an uncharted turn? Or that your throttle has a variable hard limit, depending on the road you're on?
That's a popular theory of how people behave but it doesn't play out that way. People overwhelmingly choose convenience and low price over safety all the time.
