thwee

Are you saying that the cost of doing this is low because of advertisers' experience? Or are you saying that it's ok because we already have a slightly less intrusive version of this in place?

> no one is skeptical of classification any more than the people doing the rating.

And perhaps the people being rated.

What happens where these kinds of models are the reason for suicidal thoughts or criminality?

So you're saying we're used to it, now.

But doctors getting massive amounts of training is exactly the kind of problem computer science seeks to solve with a machine learning approach. There aren't enough doctors around to monitor every patient, so machine learning takes over. Now doctors can exactly focus on a score, and say, hey we didn't even see this.

Imagine what that would do to dispel listing a key word list of languages ever touched, if we could just say, I know how to work with loops and functions, or I can compose systems of objects, or I know that a database can store, retrieve, and manipulate data. No more "I know C, C++, C++11, Javascript 5, Javascript 6, Python 2.7, Python 3.5!" If you're that dependent on people not looking up the syntax when they need to, you're either hacking into a computer at the site of the computer, or have no idea what the job entails.

Well, there's language types, if you get into Comparative Programming Languages. There's imperative languages, query languages, object oriented languages, and mixes thereof. Maybe we could call them programming accents.

As a bilingual speaker: For someone ostensibly trying to fight stereotypes around bilingualism, this article sure covers all the stereotypes without doing much to dispel them. But I guess an article stating: Listen up, my kid speaks two languages! wouldn't have met word count. They're individuals who have two language tools at their disposal instead of just one.

It should read "...Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer's decision to indulge the directive..." indulge, not obey.

Yup, that's the job!

We haven't moved much from MVC apps, have we?

It's an attempt to justify recklessness.

If you know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are responsible for what your machine does. This is why you can have web services.

If you don't know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are unleashing a dangerous machine on an unwitting population of human beings, and that's reckless.

This probably is relevant to the financial sector. Engaging in a digital arms race, and then claiming the machine is responsible for your lost retirement money.

We are so enthralled with technology that we're willing to spend large parts of our lives engaging with it. That's like a teenager loving their bo, damn the consequences.

Now we've come to trust large amounts of other people's money to a digital contest.

Betting large amounts of money on a contest is just that: a bet.

Maybe we should stop and think about whether betting retirement money in a global AI contest is a good idea.

Sure, you can make the argument that gambling is legal in many jurisdictions, but even then you have to remember that the house always wins.

Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations.

If I wrote a machine to harass people, I would want my AI to have human rights as well. Then I could claim that it wasn't me who was responsible for harassmaing a human being, but another human being.

In other words, just because you wrote a machine and convinced yourself that it's autonomous shouldn't shield you from responsibility for that machine's actions.

Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.