Building Jarvis
facebook.com
facebook.com
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 preferences too and be told about mistakes so it does better in the future.
3. Add face recognition, so it can recognise people at his door and automatically open it if they are expected.
4. Add speech recognition, by creating an app for the phone that is constantly on and listening for his voice. This is then converted to automation tasks again.
All in all, an interesting way to spend 100 hours. Calling it AI is a bit of a stretch though; this is basically linking up a bunch of in-accurate sensory parsers, coupled with some limited machine learning, connected to a bunch of if statements. Still a long way off of Jarvis, who is basically a genius by human standards!
Mark replied to a comment along these exact lines. Quote below;
Mark Zuckerberg: That's the thing about AI. It's sort of like magic. We only call things AI that we don't understand yet. Once we understand something, it's just math.
But if you'd asked someone 30 years if a computer system that you could talk to, that could see your friends and let them in, that could learn your listening habits and figure out when to make you toast, if that was intelligent, then most people would have said that would be AI. Now that we know how to do it, it's just math.
Writers, at least, understood that there were different "flavors" of artificial intelligence. I have a funny feeling that at least science fiction enthusiasts also knew that AI would be separated in this way if it ever came to fruition.
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.
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?"
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 Level AI". And level 3 is "Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)" which is "“an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.” [Quote: Nick Bostrom].
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 thinking they are intelligent when in fact they are anything but. What we have now is a parlour trick in comparison to what the brain is doing. When true AI actually comes along, no one will doubt it.
If we can build systems that can fool us into thinking their intelligent (which I will agree that outside of limited scopes we have not), then we built intelligence.
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.
That's a good turn of phrase, because it speaks to the real rub between algorithmic insufficiency and hardware insufficiency. From my reading, it seems fair to say that "strong general AI" will require some product of both to be realized and that our current hardware capabilities likely fall short of the minimum requirement (even with optimal algorithms).
Were they imagining exascale computing when Quicksort was dreamed up in 1959? No. But does that make it any less important?
As someone who was into programming and electronics in the eighties, I also feel a need to object whenever people say things like “we thought it was AI until we could make a computer do it, and now it’s just math” (paraphrasing).
We (those of us interested in the subject back then) had a pretty good idea about what would be possible in the future (because of faster machines and more storage) and what would not be possible in the future (unless a breakthrough was made in understanding intelligence).
Now, I do think we underestimated how fast things have developed, and especially the resources people have access today via the internet, but none of what I have seen today would have been classified as AI by myself back in the eighties.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system#Hist...
>[mass noun] The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.
So obviously by that speech and Zucks type of face recognition are AI. I note the '68 system was hybrid and required humans to measure the faces and enter data for where the features are so it was more analysing numbers.
There was actually speech recognition software in the 80s but it used a neural network approach rather than if statements and didn't work terribly well https://www.wired.com/2013/11/tech-time-warp-of-the-week-ibm...
Human level thinking type AI is obviously still to come.
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.
An AI doesn't need to do something it wasn't programmed for or understand what it's doing to count as one.
The construction metaphor is full of great wisdom to be gleaned as software developers. And I'm not just saying that in hopes I didn't waste all those hours watching History Channel documentaries. :-D
For me a well designed house is actually, you know, about the design. And whilst the construction is important due to standards it is largely irrelevant.
The analogy to software is apt. Well designed, well architected software is so important. Anyone can write syntactically proper code. Far harder to design a system that has just the right amount of extensibility, performance, elegance etc to meet the requirements without going over the top.
Engineering isn't really a place for more than very limited creativity. That place is R&D.
(i miss "free time to hack")
> I'd learn a lot about the state of AI this year, but I didn't realize I would also learn so much about what it's like to be an engineer at Facebook. And it's impressive.
> My experience of ramping up in the Facebook codebase is probably pretty similar to what most new engineers here go through. I was consistently impressed by how well organized our code is, and how easy it was to find what you're looking for -- whether it's related to face recognition, speech recognition, the Messenger Bot Framework [messenger.com/platform] or iOS development...
The rest of that paragraph goes through all the other developer tools you can sign up for in the facebook ecosystem, including convenient links. Then it continues:
> One of our values is "move fast". That means you should be able to come here and build an app faster than you can anywhere else, including on your own. You should be able to come here and use our infra and AI tools to build things it would take you a long time to build on your own.
It was a neat project, not denying that, but there is no free lunch. The CEO of a Fortune 500 does not write up a 5-10 min read without plugging his interests.
You can enjoy what he's doing, but also recognize what it is.
If a Google exec wrote this post, it would be about how amazing a Google product was as a solution to the problem, and that would be the end of it. But here's Mark saying "you know what, Messenger is great but I needed more". And maybe that could turn into some pretty big advice for his Messenger team on what to add next, but he seemed to be pointing out where the industry (including his own company) could do better.
I see it more as R&D than marketing, personally. His personal experiments may likely hint at new directions in which he wants to take his company. Depending on how you view Facebook, this could be terrifying or exciting.
One way I see it is: Facebook knows a lot about your (online) social interactions. Home-based AI would need to know a lot about your private behaviors and preferences. If they marry those two worlds, that's a heck of a lot of behavioral information to have. Google has a big lead in this area already, so if Facebook goes this direction too, it would be an interesting to see how it plays out.
It's not creating. It's just copy+pasting and glueing.
The actual creation of these systems took decades of research.
Jarvis in my house uses sensors, actuators, lights, switches, etc - but mine is not AI. It only does what I tell it how to do. I'm pretty happy with the results, but it can't learn a thing.
The latest thing I "taught" my Jarvis to do is stream the security camera to the TV with a voice command. Now if I only had time to look into how to tell it to stop...
[1]: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/11/node3.html
The same can't really be said of AI in most other contexts, where the goalposts continually seem to move to whatever is currently just beyond our reach.
I wonder if you could open his door with an A4 printout of his face. That's the sort of thing I'd worry about creating this system.
Edit: Forgive me HN, it looks like a lot of people have wondered this. I only commented so high up because I commented before reading all the comments! Go upvote the more creative/indepth versions of this question rather than this one :)
Now, do facial recognition with the depth component. "Oh look, paper. How quaint... NOPE!"
You could also log all people coming by with a known-unknown axis. You could train the system so that all they need do is look at the door, and they have the appropriate access they need. And it could also, instead, default in a "pass through to app for user to decide".
Don't think of this as a huge monolithic system... But instead of dozens of component parts that can work together. Then, the problem is certainly tractable. And then adding things like Google-Now, Alexa, Siri, and similar is no longer damn near impossible.
I particularly like Node-Red for this very project. It is javasript, however the big positive side effect is easy implementation with all sorts of nodejs APIs.
I already wrote a system that can take new facial inputs, classify you as "new user", and put your data in a database. All you need do is go up to the door. I can easily view the timecode and enter your details (name, phone#, email) at a later date.
source: https://github.com/jwcrawley/uWho
news article about it: http://hackaday.com/2015/03/04/face-recognition-for-your-nex...
"Print picture" to
"Compute Sfm 3d object from thousands of photos, and have access to a 3d printer that large that can print human-sized heads, and paint it appropriately in the correct color-space as to trigger the right facial recognition"
It's then trivial to add a feature of 'Blink' and 'Smile'. We have public, free haar and lbp cascades for those. It would be a few lines to add in a check that requests those 2 actions.
"Then you have to print an articulated skull and musculature that activate the appropriate smile/blink responses, with the correct coloring across the face."
And then hope that the video feed of the disjoined head trying to pass as human isn't just sent to the butler or a family member for "quality control"....
Also, even in US suburbia, smashing the window is likely going to trigger a burglar alarm and get the police called to the location, whereas bypassing the face recognition system will not.
[1] For a non billionaire house: thinner concrete walls ending in broken glass or decorative-yet-functional metal barbs, outer wall shared by a 10-20 homes neighborhood.
The building blocks, though, very much fit classic definitions of AI: face recognition, speech recognition, natural language parsing.
But no, its not Jarvis. Yet.
The bar for "AI" (as distinct from "Jarvis-level AI") isn't high. Heck, video games have had "AIs" since the 1950s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_(video... Not sure if everyone agrees with that definition, but's it the one in common use.
If so, then Machine Learning is just predicting the next possible result using the statistical probability of previously studied data, and could not qualify as AI either.
AI is being broken down in to so many parts, some that are invisible to us, that: either we abuse it to the point of over simplification, reclassify it as common sense, and redraw the finish line of where AI starts; OR we start calling everything we do a version of AI from computers turning off the lights to balancing the controls in the first Apollo missions.
(And world domination. The next step for the AI, obviously)
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')?
Add enough complicated if statements and you've got a rough definition of a human!
He's still a hacker. CEO of one of the biggest internet companies of our time and he still hacks.
I explain to people all the time, true hackers are like true writers. I've heard writers talk about the same thing. It's like an urge of creativity inside you, you have to release it into something.
You can also see in the comments section, he's replying to people and providing feedback.
I really dig this.
“First thing, as you come in, you’ll be presented with an electronic pin to clip to your clothes. This pin will connect you to the electronic services of the house,” Gates wrote in The Road Ahead. “The electronic pin you wear will tell the house who and where you are, and the house will use this information to try to meet and even anticipate your needs — all as unobtrusively as possible.” At the time, Gates speculated cameras might one day supplant the pins, as they’d be able to do facial recognition. He explained that the house would learn your preferences and adjust to your needs. Your affinity to dimmer lights, R&B, and Monet paintings would mean the lamps, music system, and screens would all adjust when you enter the room.
[0]: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/the-awesome-technology-ins...
I'd guess he has more free time than the random "3rd engineer from the left" on one of his company's projects.
Do you have any evidence to show your affirmation that CEOs work really hard and "often at least 14 hours and many work one weekend days" is true and other's affirmations that they "play golf all day" is absolutely false?
Larry Ellison was renowned for doing massive sales deals of Oracle on golf courses. If you get in 18 holes and leave with $10 million, were you not working?
At executive levels a part of the job deals with relationships, and those are work. Much less so the "nose to the grindstone in front of the computer" sort of work.
Indeed if you get invited away to a person's private island and then they later buy from the company you "work" at then that holiday was far more work than someone spending 12 hour shifts, standing, poring over circuit boards with a soldering iron or hefting rocks with a pickaxe. That's why the management deserve 200 times the salary of the workers. /s
Truly the relationships aren't important unless the CEOs make it that way. They could just do business, decide they need X amount of pressed steel, sign the contract and not play golf and have a luxurious meal. But instead they decide that only companies that kowtow to this ideal of greasing the wheels of industry by fattening the C-grades up should win the contracts.
>If you get in 18 holes and leave with $10 million, were you not working? //
No, you're not working, you're exploiting the work of others. What function did the 18 holes of golf serve except to reinforce a despotic nepotism.
The idea that this is work is interestingly both anti-capitalist (it's an inefficient aberration) and anti-socialist (it's setting people over others but providing no useful function).
An old but concrete example: Andy Grove, in High Output Management, describes a fairly typical 8 to 5 day in which he works until he's tired, with level of fatigue vs level of "doneness" being the deciding factor of when he ends his day.
Is there anything written about his personal schedule/habits? When does he go to sleep at night? When does he wake up? What kind of hours does he work?
I mean really, he has a kid, is CEO of a huge company, exercises, and still has time to do this project. My hands are more than full trying to exercise, learn Chinese, and run a small company, I have no idea where he finds time to raise a kid in there. Incredible.
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.
Apart from the whole business luminary/billionaire thing, I think Zuck is a pretty cool and insightful guy. I like both the idea of having a "challenge", as well as the specific ones he's done: running, meeting a new person each day, learning Mandarin, doing a cool side project with his house. (I get to hear about a lot of this as one of my best friends works as fb)
At the risk of sounding a little bit self-aggrandizing, I often think about how similar the two of us are, not because I'm particularly special, but just that he's a torch-carrier for guys like me. I'm a month apart from Zuck in age, I'm about to get married to a woman with a serious career, and Zuck and I both grew up in the eastern US (I'm from Chicago). I had a Chinese girlfriend growing up. My family wasn't rich but we also weren't poor. I worked at Microsoft out of college, something Zuck said he might've done if he didn't found facebook.
He's pretty talented though. I definitely didn't create wirehog. I also didn't go to Exeter or have the quality of education he did, either at Exeter, or later at Harvard. I have to wonder how much that stuff influenced his later life, and whether I should try to get my kids into those places.
Controversies aside, I think he's doing an admirable job of casting the tech industry in a positive light, with his positions on taking time off from work, and trying to hire inclusively. I don't use facebook as I have genuine concerns about privacy, but I think he's a real idealist who thinks making the world more "open and connected" is a genuinely good thing. I'd love to meet him some day.
A worry about reading about Zuckerberg digging into this area is that anything Facebook does will likely be within their walled garden. There is certainly a glimmer of hope they'll make something on the "open" side, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
I wonder to what extent having great advances in this area by proprietary cloud services will hamper the advancement and adoption of libre alternatives.
Face recognition and speech recognition are the most obvious pieces that look to be proprietary, but there is lots of other useful open stuff that he explicitly links. FastText looks like it would be really helpful for at least the natural language piece of Jarvis-like applications.
For face detection & recognition, some of the greatest advancements are getting acqui-hired and locked away (e.g. Facebook acquiring Face.com) there is still progress being made with tools like OpenCV & Dlib. I just worry progress in the open-source space will lag behind and continue to be difficult to work with, as the delta grows between proprietary capabilities and open-source options.
https://rare-technologies.com/fasttext-and-gensim-word-embed...
In reality, I hate that I am not as ambitious as I should be. Say what you want, Zuck is really killing it and its admirable.
We're the same age, yet I let myself think feel that its someone else's job to build the "cool" stuff.
I will have this article handy and read it from time to time. Hopefully it will continue to motivate me.
Also, don't necessarily think not climbing to the top of HN means you're not successful. It can be a popularity contest (Zuck will always make it to the top), and it's also somewhat random. Often the content which makes it to the frontpage was upvoted by friends, or reposted many times, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
> Can I ask people to upvote my submission?
> No. Users should vote for a story because it's intellectually interesting, not because someone is promoting it.
> When the software detects a voting ring, it penalizes the post. Accounts that vote like this eventually get their votes ignored.
When I build side projects, I just care about learning a new language, framework, library etc...I couldn't care less if it got me upvotes on here or anywhere for that matter.
Getting thousands of people to look at and/or comment on your project is one proxy and one first step. You have to get people interested on what you are working on or else you will never make money off of them.
I'm kicking myself since this appears to be a good opportunity for some self promotion. Fuck Me.
Edit: This is making me realize that I should stop being an anonymous coward and put myself out there to try to make my projects and I known to the world. I'll make this my new year's resolution.
I also have a few different accounts, while keeping my main account more 'professional'. I do it for a few reasons: the HN hive mentality hates dissenting opinions in general (doesn't matter how well written and based on facts), everything has to be super politically correct these days and the 'cultural fit' mantra could mean I would have a disadvantage getting a job (since many employers/startups will check your comment history to decide if you're a "fit", while simultaneously posting on their blog about diversity efforts).
I'd say keep using your throwaway accounts. It's not the end of the world you didn't get to promote your side project in this thread.
Well. In the current era of NSA and surveillance, it makes sense to make a new account for every message.
The main concern I would have is someone spoofing the visual recognition system with something as crude as photographs, or something more advanced like a mask.
He states in that section, "Once it identifies the person, it checks a list to confirm I'm expecting that person, and if I am then it will let them in and tell me they're here." My first thought is someone could see if there's a friend/acquaintance who routinely visits, and then spoof their face with a mask. Let alone if the system automatically lets Zuckerberg in, then that's all that would be needed.
The Canadians beg to differ ;)
Is it perhaps the US Americans are the peculiar ones and other countries are more like Canada?
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastopol,_California#History
Stick the cameras on a vlan only accessable to the (local) servers doing the face recognition, stick the servers on a vlan that has no direct connection to the internet.
Compare this to a laptop which is connected to the internet with multiple attack vectors (browser, email client, etc...)
But he says: "We use .. Sonos system with Spotify for music, a Samsung TV, a Nest cam for Max". So all of his appliances do get outside. I did a double-take on Nest cam. So he's streaming videos from his house on the internet with a closed source hw and software.
The difference between a switch and a laptop is that your switch isn't running browsers with 0days found regularly, no malicious JS payloads, no phishing emails.
To exploit a switch you generally need access to the management interface, something anyone who has any experience with networking does not put on the same network (virtual or physical) as laptops, iPads, televisions, or internet connected cameras.
On top of that, this would give Zuckerberg so much insight into so many things - the pain faced by developers, the pain faced by the users, how users would want to use AI products, why developers are not able to build the products users want. And this plays well into his strengths as a CEO. There aren't many (any?) big company CEOs who can do this.
It's not voice centric like 'jarvis' would be, but it bridges most of the existing smart devices that exist right now and let's you do a plethora of many more things than 'jarvis' does. You can for example add gps tracking to your phone and have it control your thermostat for when you're close to home, or turn on the the lights at sundown and you're home, or you can program it to shut off the light when something is playing on the chromecast, etc. It supports alexa skills as well, so you can have that be a trigger for whatever you need done.
Hass's oobe is basically just a dashboard for your smart devices, but with some tinkering you can set up rules and customize it for your personal needs.
Edit: Tried the demo, it does look pretty sleek admittedly.
> This preference for text communication over voice communication fits a pattern we're seeing with Messenger and WhatsApp overall, where the volume of text messaging around the world is growing much faster than the volume of voice communication. This suggests that future AI products cannot be solely focused on voice and will need a private messaging interface as well. Once you're enabling private messaging, it's much better to use a platform like Messenger than to build a new app from scratch. I have always been optimistic about AI bots, but my experience with Jarvis has made me even more optimistic that we'll all communicate with bots like Jarvis in the future.
I've noticed that myself with Siri. I avoided using it for years but finally gave in and enabled full Siri access so I can ask simple questions when the phone is locked. Our nightly lows in Florida have been all over the place lately and my birds prefer to stay in the porch when it's 65F or higher but if it's lower, I have to bring them indoors. So my most common question is: "Hey Siri, what's the low temperature for tonight?" Unlocking the phone, swiping right, clicking on the weather icon, waiting, and then parsing the screen to locate the low temperature is a lot more involved.
However, now that I have Siri, I try to use it for more things via voice but it doesn't always work because (1) Siri is not that good, (2) it is awkward to try to find out what exact words to use for Siri, in front of other people, and (3) there is no autosuggest for search when speaking, which helps a lot when manually typing.
Personally, I don't think voice + text is enough. Facial/body gesture recognition will definitely have a part to play in this long-term.
> One thing that surprised me about my communication with Jarvis is that when I have the choice of either speaking or texting, I text much more than I would have expected. This is for a number of reasons, but mostly it feels less disturbing to people around me. If I'm doing something that relates to them, like playing music for all of us, then speaking feels fine, but most of the time text feels more appropriate.
I've found myself doing the same thing. For queries and commands which involve only myself I prefer to type unless I'm alone, but for questions which involve the people around me asking verbally seems more useful.
zuck-mbpl:~ zuck$ php j play some red hot chili peppers
Quick startup, a good amount of CLI-specific APIs, available on many servers already, and no compiler or huge amount of tools needed.
It's a bit verbose for little scripts that should be in something like bash, but it's a great alternative to something like python if you are more familiar with it.
Ruby
IO.foreach('logs1.txt') {|x| puts x if /\b\w{15}\b/.match? x }
Python3
import re
with open('logs1.txt', 'rt') as fh:
for line in fh:
if re.search(r'\b\w{15}\b', line): print(line, end=' ')
Perl
open my $fh, '<', 'logs1.txt';
while (<$fh>) { chomp; say if $_ =~ /\b\w{15}\b/; }
close $fh;
NodeJS
var fs = require('fs'), byline = require('byline');
var stream = byline(fs.createReadStream('logs1.txt', {encoding: 'utf8'}));
stream.on('data', function(line) { if (line.match(/\b\w{15}\b/)) console.log(line); });
PHP
$fh = fopen('logs1.txt', 'r');
while (($line = fgets($fh)) !== false) {
if (preg_match('/\b\w{15}\b/', $line)) echo $line;
}
fclose($fh);Alexa can be a little frustrating sometimes but overall once you get her dialed in it feels like the future.
I even set up a pet feeder like Zuck mentioned (http://www.super-feeder.com/ you can use a normal home automation 110V relay but I wired up a 12V relay to a C.H.I.P. for more fine-grained control)
I hope Google/Amazon and all of the people in ML can take some time to read it.
Main Important Points:
0. Build a simple, easy prototype first. Then add better functionality later when you have finished the simple things.
1. Users will be using text over speech more than we think.
2. Users always have their phones with them. This suggests that assistant control should be done via the phone, rather than through fixed hubs around the house.
3. General AI is more akin to a limit point, rather than some attainable state.
4. Users need to be able to interface with training processes of their assistant to create more personalized interactions. A new user-machine command protocol may be invented soon to create an interface for this.
5. New data protocols may be necessary to to jump start AI and IOT together.
6. Aggressive AI will be needed to make AI more hands-off in the future; more autonomous.
7. More advanced mathematics and internal representation will be needed to allow AI systems to obtain and apply domain knowledge in isomorphic tasks.
Part of the project was an admin panel, to oversee the status/health of all the systems, as well as a manual control panel. My biggest concern was security. Granted, it was an internal network in my house, but if anyone got access to it, they had camera feeds, and practically full control of my house.
I wonder how someone like Zuck protects this system, given all the nefarious people who I'm sure would love access to it.
The true Turing test for any AI: http://nextshark.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ZuckDog_26.j...
Also, the most important takeaway, and one that I experience on a day-to-day basis, was the idea that most ML systems currently are heavily over-fitted and scale is going to be a huge challenge.
This almost felt like satire but in the best way possible.
Success usually begets success and more determination.
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".
I'm curious, is that priority computed based on Mark's circle of friends? Or, are these values hard-coded / special-cased for the CEO, and potentially other individuals aswell?
Probably nothing but I can't shake the comical thought of one of those little bugs rocketing to turbo mode while the dude inside is frantically slapping the big red "stop" button.
Hilarious to think about nonetheless.
You'd have to guarantee perfect information from road repair crews, at least, if you were going to ignore situational signage.
The speed is part of the map.
To do this, I installed a few cameras at my door that can capture images from all angles.
I understand that this doesn't necessarily help in itself, but it should give plenty of options for detecting anomalies.
No magic needed.
This.
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.
For a moment I thought I was reading an infomercial.
technically ... is that still legal?
not sure now. maybe, maybe not.
With computers getting smaller and faster exponentially, a lot of science fiction is quite close.
The hard part is how we can handle this new power. Facebook face recognition can identify me anywhere. Cars can see people/kids in 3d space. Everything I say can be recorded to speech and be searched .
It doesn't take long for AI to realize humans cause a lot of pain to lesser species and eat them as food. They also pollute the planet like crazy and a way to save the planet might be to exterminate some of them.
sound of a million pitches being thrown together
Didn't MS just announce that Cortana has achieved exactly this?
Compare with things like Amazon Echo (and I believe Siri and similar services) which send audio clips to a cloud service and do all of the processing there.
The latter is extremely easy to find because that's what's been in use for the last 30 years.
Dunno what that means, just that it would be mildly funny if someone used this fact to try to get a job at Facebook or something.
As long as people like you think security is easy, people like me will continue to have a job, unfortunately.
I bet, with no information other than what's supplied, that this system is insecure. It's not really a knock on Zuckerberg, just a statement based on my experience. I am totally open to being wrong, I just think we know more than nothing about hobby projects and their propensity to consider security secondary, tertiary, or not at all.
Admittedly, this is Mark Zuckerberg, so who knows, it might have been meticulously coded to be perfect. The guy's a bit of an obsessive, based on what I've read, so I would also not be surprised to find it's tightly locked down and very high quality code. I don't the guy, just the general situation.
Not saying you would do that, just saying for other people reading that it's not really a joking matter when it really happens =P
I recall reading someone trying to PM Zuckerberg their resumé by using a bug in Facebook to force him to be friends with her.
Though, I do disagree. I think it's mildly funny when someone does something like this. Not in an encouraging way, I guess, but more as a news item I get to read safely in my pseudo-anonymous home.
Honestly, even though this stuff has been done before, I'm actually pretty impressed with how much he's been able to learn and achieve in that time. Seems like not all of his hacker skills have wasted away, even if some of it is in PHP :)
I think finding the time to do all this is actually far harder for someone in his position, making it even more impressive. Not particularly ground breaking, sure, but not a bad effort.
Then saw it was a Facebook link and was oh...
One-off home brew projects like this are neat but until someone creates and releases a good, extensible foundation to build on top of, meh... And even then it would probably be terrible because they would try to spin it into some business effort (which hackers will avoid b/c they don't want to be glued to someone else's product) instead of an earnest open source effort.
Sure, he has the money to pay people to do it for him, but it was as much a learning experience as anything else.
I've been working on a system for my home as well, and my goal is to implement as much code myself as possible, rather than relying on external libraries, mostly so that I can learn more about how those things work.
>> In some ways, this challenge was easier than I expected. In fact, my running challenge (I also set out to run 365 miles in 2016) took more total time <<
At a casual pace of 10 minutes per mile, that's around 60 hours. Does needing 60 hours to build all that sound plausible to anyone familiar with the task?
Edit: at the end he notes that "I spent about 100 hours building Jarvis", so Mark is a really slow runner :)
To use an existing private service, not nearly as much effort.
That being said: Of course he could have learned how to train a model himself, but even in that case he is using training infrastructure and data that is available to him that is not public. I highly doubt he had the time to build those sorts of things himself. But his goal was more talking to his home and using tools to build an interactive home assistant. Sounds like he was very successful at doing that. He wasn't out to build the individual AI pieces, doesn't make it not cool or interesting.