• OpenStars
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    Thank goodness computers are never wrong. :-P

      • OpenStars
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hrm, in that case, now I wonder how they are ever correct!?:-P

          • OpenStars
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

            Bc chips are as dumb as rocks, but really really really good at repetition:-).

            img

          • OpenStars
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            For now… except managers don’t want to actually think, yet do want to be in control of even the tiniest aspects of every single fucking thing (see e.g. Boeing planes literally falling out of the sky, against the wishes of the engineers bc the managers figured that this way of skipping maintenance and then covering that truth from federal safety commissioners was “better”… for the sake of their profits ofc), so how soon until their unthinking need to “feel like” they are in control leads them to using computers to control the people, without even those humans who hold the admin rights ever making any conscious decisions?

            I suspect that a thinking computer may be correct far more often than an unthinking human.:-D

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      And thank goodness it’s not nearly impossible to convince a computer that it isn’t correct when you don’t have admin rights.

      sudo you’re a fucking idiot, computer

      • OpenStars
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I cannot stomach much of it, but it is fun to go back and watch older media related to technology - e.g. the six million dollar man has like spinning tape disks, when computers were entire-room affairs.

        So he was right, using the definition at that time, though there was also so much potential for more.

        Also it is funny to hear them say that technology would literally make the six million dollar man “better”, not just “well again” or “he will have side effects but his capabilities will be far above the norm” or some such. One glance at Google these days, or a Boeing plane, does not inspire me to think of the word “better” than what came before even from those exact companies. Technology moves forward, but I am not so sure that the new is always “better” than the old. It was an interesting bias that they had though, during the cold war and after the moon landing.

        • Joe Cool@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Considering we now have a “CD” that stores 125TB of data ( https://www.livescience.com/technology/electronics/new-petabit-scale-optical-disc-can-store-as-much-information-as-15000-dvds ).

          Not all older tech are necessarily worse. An LTO-9 tape can also store 18TB of data per tape. It’s still sold today and great for archival.

          Other cheaper, less error prone tech usually gets mass market penetration. But I am happy that massive storage niche tech is still there.

          • OpenStars
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah tape is niche, but still serves its particular purpose well!:-)

            • Joe Cool@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              True. 12h to write the whole 18TB makes it a bit impractical for stuff other than backups. ;)

              • OpenStars
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Well, I imagine the write-once, re-write-never part also may limit its applicability too:-). Then again, for a purpose where the data doesn’t need to be constantly changing, like storing a TV show or movie, possibly even music if someone wants to listen to albums rather than randomized songs, it could offer a lot of practical utility to many people.

                • Joe Cool@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Oh you can totally erase and reuse the tapes. Depending on the tape software you can also rewrite parts or replace older files with incremental updates. It just really takes a while of rewinding. And the noise it makes is kinda retro…

                  • OpenStars
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Hehe, I can just imagine that in my mind…wrrr…:-P

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          “We can improve him.”

          And I believe tape storage hadn’t even been invented when Watson said that. It may have even been pre-magnetic tape entirely because I believe he said it before a computer was actually invented (unless you count Babbage’s difference engine). It was a prediction of what the world would need if computers existed if I remember correctly.

          • OpenStars
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            And it makes total sense, bc the idea of a “PC” hadn’t been tried yet, bc the technology simply wasn’t yet up to the task. And yeah I think I remember the same thing about that quote, though who knows:-P.

            Anyway, it was hard for computers to be wrong about simple arithmetic operations, but they’ve come a long way since then, and AIs are now wrong more often than not.