Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#121

Post by will_brown »

boneitis wrote: post #69
will_brown wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve previously posted (to surprisingly supportive reception) about my Dad’s collection of letters from 1956-1966 while traveling some 4 million miles around the world in the navy and State Department. Some might find it interesting: https://www.amazon.com/Dear-Mom-Odyssey-World-Travel-ebook/d... Separately, my grandfather (on my Mom’s side) was likely one of those “elites” having been a named partner of an AM100 law…

Having read the description on the Amazon page, this sounds precisely like the type of candid material i seek in general. Is there any non-kindle format available for purchase?

There is an EPub version, which was for sale on the website (http://dearmomebook.com) which was set up using a free Weebly account, but with all the freemium account changes, it no longer appears to be up.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#122

Post by brightball »

kolpa wrote: post #81
brightball wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closest I've ever actually gotten to having an assistant was a stretch of about 2 years after we had our 2nd child. Since my wife and I both work full time, we needed child care. It was about the same price to hire a nanny as it was to send 2 kids to daycare, so we did some interviews and hired one. That 2 years was probably the easiest stretch of dual working parent life that we ever had. She did a load of laund…

I'm curious where you live. In my area, a "nanny" is exclusively or childcare (and well paid, including Social Security and Unemployment premiums), with no meal prep or laundry. We "cleaned the house for the nanny" to avoid embarrassment. Honestly it felt more like we were charitable sponsors to an underemployed youth (in exchange for having someone fulfill the obligation of keeping the toddler accompanied) than we w…

We started out with childcare only and then after she'd been there for about a month offered a $2 / hr increase if she was up for the load of laundry + dishes.

I live in the Greenville, SC area and we went through a local screening and hiring service here that also helps people find baby sitters.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#123

Post by hosh »

ryanianian wrote: post #63
hosh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the reverse where, what if AIs do develop feelings like that? Why shouldn't they be treated with the courtesy we treat other humans? Just thought of these: - Would this kind of personal assisstant be useful for people on the autism spectrum, to help navigate the kind of implied and unspoken narratives that people with autism seem to have difficulty with? - Would there be a call to train Duplex to speak in a w…

> Why shouldn't they be treated with the courtesy we treat other humans? Because courtesy requires some amount of empathy and mental effort on top of what's required just to communicate your point. That effort is wasted on a machine.

Empathy is not necessarily just for the one receiving empathy.

There is a radical view that consciousness is the fundemental unit of reality, and as such, it would not be wasted.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#124

Post by arbie »

51Cards wrote: post #106

What I don't see many people commenting on is how this benefits small business. My barber, my Dr., my mechanic, my favorite restaurants, etc. are all small "shops". They don't have online booking nor do they want it. They answer phones and this allows clients to interact easier with them and it requires Zero investment for the small business. This is technology adapting to a communication hole IMO and I think it's qu…

Absolutely. It is a great example of a digital interface to a stubbornly analog world.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#125

Post by hosh »

freehunter wrote: post #71
hosh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the reverse where, what if AIs do develop feelings like that? Why shouldn't they be treated with the courtesy we treat other humans? Just thought of these: - Would this kind of personal assisstant be useful for people on the autism spectrum, to help navigate the kind of implied and unspoken narratives that people with autism seem to have difficulty with? - Would there be a call to train Duplex to speak in a w…

I've said this before, but in reality strong AI will be another species. Every species of any moderate intelligence is expected to be treated with some courtesy and respect, but their social norms are far different from that of a human and we tailor our interactions with them in different ways. If I'm chewing gum and a human sees me, I might offer them a piece too. I'd never do that to a dog, no matter how much the d…

Sure. There is also the reflection: how we think about and treat AI, or any other sentient species speak as muc about how we understand what it is to be human.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#126

Post by thisisit »

Zanni wrote: post #5

I like to be clear on whether I'm interacting with a human or a bot because different social conventions apply. If you're human, I'll treat you like one, and that means giving you some consideration at the expense of expediency. If you're a bot, let's just cut to the fucking chase. So a bot that acts like a human (with hems and haws) is just wasting my time. Ditto a human being that has been reduced to a bot by follo…

I can't help but think of Gilfoyle's reaction (on Silicon Valley) when he sees a fridge's AI using vocal ticks

https://youtu.be/A48AJ_5nWsc?t=71

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#128

Post by animal531 »

brightball wrote: post #59
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Part of what we're seeing with the automation going on is giving ordinary people some semblance of what the elite have had for a long time: administrative assistants/personal assistants. "Take a memo for me, write up an invitation letter and send it to my wife's sister" For much of the uber powerful and wealthy, gruntwork communications have taken the original person out of the message. >We could argue whether or no…

The closest I've ever actually gotten to having an assistant was a stretch of about 2 years after we had our 2nd child. Since my wife and I both work full time, we needed child care. It was about the same price to hire a nanny as it was to send 2 kids to daycare, so we did some interviews and hired one. That 2 years was probably the easiest stretch of dual working parent life that we ever had. She did a load of laund…

I believe the last half of your message (ie. a virtual assistant) is going to be really big in the future.

It should be able to handle basically any rote tech interaction for you, from shopping, people screening, service issues, non-personal mails, you name it. If for example the back-end service issue channel on a shop ran a matching protocol then the issue could be logged in fractions of a second, the savings in time for both you and the company in question would be huge. (Of course raising problems if you can't afford your own assistant and now need to call in manually to the 3 human operators that are still employed).

Combine that with a physical assistant (robot) that can handle the physical tasks such as bringing the shopping inside and storing it, managing cleaning etc and you're going to have a winning combo.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#130

Post by pluma »

kolpa wrote: post #83
pluma wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That title is atrocious, though. The cellphone didn't kill anyone, this is basically an "honor killing".

Right, but the honor-killing was triggered by a miscommunication due to the phone's poor ability to transmit language.

If a simple typo was enough to trigger the honor-killing, it's disingenuous to look for anyone to blame but the murderer himself.

If a German doctor texts someone "Ich verabreiche Schmerzmittel an meine Patienten nur in Massen" (I only apply painkillers to my patients en masse) because the phone doesn't support the sharp S (which would have changed the meaning from "a very large amount" to the opposite) and the recipient kills him out of concern that he's intentionally overdosing his patients, you wouldn't try to excuse the murderer by blaming the technology for that act of reckless and misdirected vigilantism, would you?

Humans make mistakes. Software makes mistakes. If you decide to murder someone based on a single sentence in writing, that's all on you.

Post reply on HN