R00bot

That version doesn't exist is what I'm saying. The manufacturers have to put in significant work to get it to that point. And along the way they have to choose to make it similar to pixel/what people expect "stock" android to look like, instead of putting their own flair on it. My point is that it takes just as much work to make an android skin that feels "stock" as to make one that doesn't. You can't dismiss their version of Android as being "stock" because that doesn't exist.

Stock android doesn't really exist. It barely works and is missing essential features like working Bluetooth audio. It's intended as a starting point for companies to build their own experience on top of, if any company released a phone running anywhere near stock android they would be laughed out of existence. Linus Tech tips did a pretty good overview of what stock android is a few days ago https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-hlRB2izres

The fact that Facebook are allowing spam pages into this is wild.

I run a Facebook page (periodically). Frequently post things which get 3k+ likes. Facebook has paid me $0.

Strange to equate the other senses to performance in intellectual tasks but sure. Do you think feeding data from smells, touch, taste, etc. into an AI along with the video will suddenly make it intelligent? No, it will just make it more likely to guess what something smells like. I think it's very clear that our current approach to AI is missing something much more fundamental to thought than that, it's not just a dataset problem.

Oh yeah we're 100% agreed on that. I'm thinking of the AI evangelicals who will argue tooth and nail that LLMs have "emergent properties" of intelligence, and that it's simply an issue of training data/compute power before we'll get some digital god being. Unfortunately these people exist, and they're depressingly common. They've definitely reduced in numbers since AI hype has died down though.

I feel like the amount of training data required for these AIs serves as a pretty compelling argument as to why AI is clearly nowhere near human intelligence. It shouldn't take thousands of human lifetimes of data to train an AI if it's truly near human-level intelligence. In fact, I think it's an argument for them not being intelligent whatsoever. With that much training data, everything that could be asked of them should be in the training data. And yet they still fail at any task not in their data.

Put simply; a human needs less than 1 lifetime of training data to be more intelligent than AI. If it hasn't already solved it, I don't think throwing more training data/compute at the problem will solve this.

Big fan of this series.

Nah the ML is generally just looking at trends in traffic on a network, and blocking traffic if it doesn't fit the trends. It's essential to use ML over humans for this because of the volume of traffic and the response speeds needed for cyber attacks. It's simply not possible for a human to vet all that traffic fast enough.

Cyber security software has been using AI (aka ML) for years. Blaming AI for this outage is stupid.