What she asks of machines they cannot have, as it comes from birth. She's looking at the wrong place. the furthers step isn't Watson, but UHFT.

An amoeba's interaction with its environment comes from the fact that it's a product of that environment. AI are not a product of their environment, they are artificial. What Alva Noe asks of an AI could only be answered by one that appears spontaneously from its environment.

However, the environment we've created in which AI could appear is way too simple to allow such spontaneous creation. For now.

The singularity won't arrive by a human built AI but by the evolution of a spontaneous behavior on an environment created for human purposes. Thus, the pool from which true AI will come isn't Watson, but ultra high frequency trading. Not a created being, but a created environment in which inexplicable behaviors arise.

EXTERMINATE

Your question is meaningless. Like "is there any ocean left which doesn't contain water?" or "what happened to all those unicorns that once tölted on the Atlantidan prairies?"

What's the point of everything else we do in space if not to extend our horizon? Manned space stations allow us to advance in one of the pillars of colonizing space; the actual survival in that space.

The question should be quite the opposite. what's the point on every other investment that doesn't allow us to push our boundaries? What's the objective of humanity?

For me, the primary objective should be to expand, so for example every single dollar spent in defense, to fight among ourselves, is only useful in whatever science those investments bring along.

I think it's neither. A lot of men simply don't care at all about how many women are in IT and react to the feeling that they are made responsible for it, while the vast majority are simple low level guys who have little impact on who gets hired and even less on who gets promoted.

What I don't get is why is it important? Even the immense majority of men were feminists, corporate managers would still be the only ones with the power to change the distribution. And whoever thinks corporate managers take their decisions based on what their employees think is naive or ignorant.

If they expect to earn as much as medics and engineers? Most certainly yes. Re read the previous posts and try to find who's the first one to relate salary with stupidity.

I know! I know! Ask her about her implication on the future best seller "Barbie: I, against all odds, can be a computer engineer for Amazon in Seattle"!

As the city gets whiter, it reflects more light, which is bad for cities with long, cold, winters.

You're the retard who brought physical differences. If the parents were stupid enough to raise women who chose to be nurses instead of medics, or art students instead of engineers it's their fucking fault, not everyone else's. Mine didn't. And if I have any daughters I will most certainly not teach them those biases.

STARVING?

Innocent animals are DYING every day! What kind of monster are you that you'd rather deal with what people eat?

So if your mother was having a heart attack and you were hungry you'd first call for a pizza and only then help her!?

You should die in a fire fueled by your own selfishness.

Someone who should be fired, not for being misogynistic, but simply for being stupid enough to not understand what he/she was doing.

I'd rather work somewhere where everybody is a misogynistic drooling pig than with people stupid enough to read that crap before sending it to print and not having the elementary intellectual capacity to think "when this shit hits the interwebz we'll be interred in so much crap we'll be able to host the World Shit Skiing Championship."

No, he meant a CIO

Relatively low amount? For $50k it would have to be coded by volunteers and prison inmates.

"It's breaking rocks with a hammer, being stabbed in the laundry, or coding the speech recognition thing."
"Hmm, the laundry thing seems superfun but I'll pick hammering rocks. Give the coding gig to the guys in death row. They have nothing to lose anyway."

You may be right, let's offer $50k to whoever sends another probe to a comet. Sure it cost $1,4 billions to the ESA but a lone wolf could find a qualitatively better way to do the mission. By February 4, 2015.

Slashdot is the last place where I expected to see an extremely difficult problem underestimated just because it's a computing problem.

When US Intelligence says something so clearly stupid, you always have to look for the subtext. The hidden message. The truth crouching behind the apparent idiocy.

In this case, the hidden message seems to be "we are incompetent in even the simplest basics of our main task".