Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment They are afraid to "release" him. (Score 1) 527

Bringsjord acknowledges that the endeavor to create pure evil, even in a software program, does raise ethical questions, such as, how researchers could control an artificially intelligent character like E if "he" was placed in a virtual world such as Second Life...

Seriously? You could control it by deleting it if it got out of hand.

In my opinion, having it enter a virtual world posing as a real person would definitely prove whether or not it has the AI that it does, evil AI or not.

The more likely explanation is that this "evil" AI only works within a very limited construct of creator-controlled existence.

Comment Re:Can it be retroactive? (Score 1) 766

Generally, I would agree with you. Cutting useless government programs is a good thing (though, judging by your example, we'd probably have very different ideas of what to cut). Based on that assumption, I think you have to look at the merit of the project as a basis for implementation, and not just whether or not it can be paid for. The question (as many other posts have hit on) is whether pouring more tax dollars, where ever they come from, into colleges is worth it. Some would see that the colleges raise tuition in response to the "free" money as evidence that it doesn't work, and that just hurts the people that pay for college on their own. To me, that doesn't seem very fair.

"Free" is probably the most improperly used word in modern vocabulary. There are so few things in life that are actually "free". It costs somebody something. I would prefer to call this "tax-subsidized education" (an accurately descriptive name), but then the beneficiaries would feel as though people have pity for them instead of thinking this benefit comes out of thin air.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Working...