I have this on my home since 2014 and made by me. I offer this solution to clients in my city with a startup I founded called Hivee https://hivee.io
No magic needed.
Building Jarvis
241–250 of 263 posts
Re: Building Jarvis
#242It is important to note that Zuckerberg did not claim any original contributions, nor does he name any of the non-Facebook libraries used, denying the acknowledgement of others' work which he relied upon. For all we know, he used some off-the-shelf libraries for face recognition, language processing, and speech recognition, while having little to no understanding of how they actually work. This is what a lamer does, not a hacker.
There is a huge gap in public perception of the competence of the elite in the tech industry. People will get the wrong impression that Zuckerberg is an expert on any of these topics. It reminds me of the antagonist of Ex Machina who is portrayed as CEO of a giant software company, AI expert, and robotics engineer, all in one person.
Re: Building Jarvis
#243> If it gets the mood wrong, I can just tell it, for example, "that's not light, play something light", and it can both learn the classification for that song and adjust immediately.
That sounds awesome.
Although - and I know this isn't a Facebook project - Facebook is very low in the order of companies I trust with home automation/AI, if he decides to make Jarvis commercial (probably necessitating a name change!) I think I'm not sure I'd trust it even if ostensibly "not a Facebook company".
Re: Building Jarvis
#244Say what you will about Zuckerberg, but this is a really cool project! Steps he took: 1. Connect his home devices (lights, thermostat, doors, music player, TV, CCTV etc) to his computer, so he can turn them on and off from it and in general automate his house from his PC. 2. Add an NLP component to his computer, so he could text instructions to it and it would apply the correct automation task. This can learn prefere…
> an interesting way to spend 100 hours
If you're in a position to. It sounds like he plugged into Facebook's face recognition, for example, and I don't think that's available as an API request ('is this one of my friends')?
Re: Building Jarvis
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I see what you mean... I guess I meant that compared to running a multi-billion dollar company, changing diapers or reading Cat in the Hat for the millionth time seems pretty mundane.
You're missing what raising a child entails if you think that's all it entails. If you raise a child without the deep emotional investment that comes from a parent, you're not going to raise a child well at all.
I know, I have a two-year-old boy. I'm just saying he can get more of a break than a regular person that doesn't have nannies and whatnot.
I haven't had two hours to myself since the day my kid was born, so the idea of having 100 hours to do a fun project like automating my house is completely out of the realm of possibility for me.
Re: Building Jarvis
#246> ... reliably delivering push notifications, managing identity and permissions for different people, and more. You can learn about the bot framework at ...
For a moment I thought I was reading an infomercial.
Re: Building Jarvis
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pardon my nerding out, but I think the difference between the computer system and Data was the degree of self-determination given to each system. When the holodeck was instructed to create an opponent capable of defeating Data, it created an sentient Moriarty AI. The computer system was fully capable of being a full AI, it was just never instructed to.
The ship's computer being limited to turning on the lights is just one of many points in Star Trek where the writers intentionally avoid using the fictional technology to its full capabilities in order to keep the plot exciting and suitable for a main stream audience. Transporters and replicators are another example: Suitably used they could be terrifying weapons.
Star Trek, for all it's technology, was always a story about humans. Even Data's journey is about as human-centric as you can get. In that way even the recent series have mirrored an older age of science fiction ("Using science to opine on the human condition" etc).
The Culture novels managed to convince me that a story about true AI needs to not only look a little different, but fundamentally different. Not least, answering "Why still humans around?"
Re: Building Jarvis
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pardon my nerding out, but I think the difference between the computer system and Data was the degree of self-determination given to each system. When the holodeck was instructed to create an opponent capable of defeating Data, it created an sentient Moriarty AI. The computer system was fully capable of being a full AI, it was just never instructed to.
The ship's computer being limited to turning on the lights is just one of many points in Star Trek where the writers intentionally avoid using the fictional technology to its full capabilities in order to keep the plot exciting and suitable for a main stream audience. Transporters and replicators are another example: Suitably used they could be terrifying weapons.
> Transporters and replicators are another example: Suitably used they could be terrifying weapons.
One thing I was always wondering is why it took as long as ST:VOY to see transporters being used as a way to deliver armed torpedoes directly into the target.
In later seasons of Stargate SG-1 they sidestepped this problem cleverly - when humans received transporter technology from a more advanced species, they had non-overridable safeguards[0] (and an inspector on-board) preventing them from being used as a weapons delivery platform.
[0] - which, in the best fashion of this series, were overridden several times anyway. A lesson for those who think that if something is banned, it won't be used.
Re: Building Jarvis
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a read of this; http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu... It's a very long read, but it will give you a much better overview of AI and the different "calibres" than I could possibly try to in a HN comment. What Mark has used here is "Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI)", the first of three levels/calibres of AI. Level 2 is "Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)", otherwise known as "Human…
sigh this is why I don't usually get involved in arguments about whether something is considered AI or not; it just devolves into people trying to define and redefine what the word 'AI' even means. Final word: I follow this stuff closely and read the research articles, and what we currently have is really great, but it's still just pulling the wool over your eyes. These techniques and algorithms trick you into thinki…
I agree.
What I see we have now is lots of bricks - often overly problem-specific (and it's important to stress this; a lot of things that get called "AI" in the news is really lots of compute thrown at super specific heuristics). To call it AI, we still need to connect them together into a system that can use those components to learn and solve problems it didn't see before, without bricking itself in the process.
Re: Building Jarvis
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet 30 years we could do all that with a whole lot of if statements. It would just return false positives a lot more. A couple of others have replied saying the same thing as you that this is 'AI', but it's not. As soon as you try to use it for something it wasn't programmed for, it fails. It doesn't even understand what it is doing right now. This isn't me 'moving the goalposts' either, we have literally never a…
You couldn't do face or voice recognition 30 years ago with if statements.
But as a data point, you could do it 10 years ago. On a cheap desktop PC. And without Internet connection or cloud computing.
Source: around 2006 I made a Star Trek-like music control system with Microsoft Speech API and an electret microphone hand-soldered to a long cable and an audio jack. With ~30 minutes of training on my voice it worked as reliably in noisy environment as Google works for me now.