There is a big hole there, though

1. not actual intelligence
2. man-made
3. ...
4. man-made _intelligence_

Being man-made doesn't make it intelligence, or insulate it from being a man-made tool that appears clever because the builder was intelligent. If we don't have a good definition of intelligence, it is basically impossible to make an objective claim that the intelligence is "in" the system, and not just something that had to be present externally to design the system.

Luckily, none of that impacts the attempts of natural philosophers, and later scientists, to encode human intelligence into machines in order to better complete human tasks.

Because they don't know most people write it LoRD for clarity.

I'm using a small dumb-phone for emergencies and a wifi tablet for modern apps. My dumb phone is just a $20 Samsung, and it holds a charge for over a week.

The thing is, if you wait that long every time, the battery has memory effects. You still need to charge every 2 or 3 days.

Those smart phone batteries may last a few days, but if you're not charging every day the battery won't last. That's just the deal with these newer battery technologies.

If you want one with long life and little battery memory, I recommend a Motorola from the early 90s. Under 10 lb, and comes with a car adapter!

A good argument has been made that the metal shells of satellites will orbit for a long time, but no reasonable case has been made that their very sensitive, short-life electronics will survive longer than things on Earth that are isolated and have decent power generation, like remote solar powered scientific sensors.

There is either corrosion or an analogue, depending how you define it.

There isn't Earth weather, but there is space weather. Much of the electronics on a space craft are susceptible to damage from that weather. Just as the stuff in space doesn't have much Earth weather to worry about, the stuff on Earth doesn't have the space weather to worry about. I'm not sure why an IC on Earth would be expected to have a shorter lifespan than the ones in space. The ones in space have to be specially constructed just to keep them from failing rapidly. And there is still a high failure rate. Satellites don't last long and have to be replaced frequently.

I was assuming it was a nuclear(5) as in http://dictionary.reference.co... with "nuke" being nuclear(1).

Maybe I'm giving credit too freely, but I thought it was a mildly clever word play that was also awkward and unfunny.

Who said it?! That talking head on the TV. What are yousaying, that she didn't talk to real AI researchers for the descriptions of the field?! That she sat down with her editor and they made up whichever words sounded interesting?! Shocking, truly shocking.

Maybe when AI gets good enough, I can get an expert system that turns on a red warning light whenever there is media drivel on the TV. Oh, wait, that's just called a closed circuit, not AI.

It is not so simple that the intelligence would then be artificial; the device is artificial, but the intelligence is still human intelligence, translated into a complex tool.

Don't think just because you solve the real problems that the arguments over definitions go away. Defining intelligence is harder than that. There are already lots of competing definitions. Arguing over definitions is for philosophy and English majors, not AI majors. It probably won't be seriously attempted, even while it remains the major focus of journalists. (English and pol-sci majors)

Animals can indeed speak, that is recycled propaganda that was refuted long, long ago.

As a tournament chess player I can tell you, most of the humans aren't any good at chess either. As far as chess ratings go, many monkeys would have a similar rating to the average human, e.g. unable to win a single game against the lowest rated player at a tournament. If we had a "chess in the zoos" program to teach chess to baby primates, I'll bet we'd have some good orangutan players. Adult humans can barely learn the moves, but even if they study for decades few are capable of reaching the level of play than an 8 year old reaches in a couple months, if you can get them to put a couple months of focus in.

Human self-awareness isn't a goal of the real research. Better tools for humans is the goal, and the successes can be understood in that light also.

Don't confuse what some pure academic says or wants or speculates with being what the whole "field" is doing, because the people doing experimental work are the ones actually doing anything. And that is driven largely by money from toolmakers, for example IBM.

Research of flight didn't stop at any of the early mileposts, either. The idea that reaching a milepost somehow results in "oh we're there, we need to invent a new name and pretend we're a new field so we can research the next step" is just insane. A common idea, to be sure. Some sort of video-game thinking, where the goals are confused with the checkpoints.

"I haven't heard of anything new, therefore there is nothing."

What a maroon. I expect more learned intelligence than that, even from an anonymous cowherd.

You might be interested to learn what Watson is, since you claim to be in the field but never read even a basic technical description of the project.

Search, interestingly, is the hardest part of human intelligence too. Almost everything gets stored up there somewhere, but a difference in recall can be the difference between 65 and 150.

As long as you can give up on the "artificial" and "intelligence" parts, the rest of it there are solid working academic definitions for.

As to the Question, my prediction is that the LED status panel on a remote solar power installation somewhere will still be functioning hundreds of years after everything else.

The reason it looks like a conflict of interest in the case of a contractor is that you're thinking of them as a 1099 "employee" when actually they're a business to business service provider. It more goes the other way; in that case you can do it unless the contract says not to, since as he said it is designed for 3rd parties to write these plugins.

You're assuming that to have the effect, you have to shift companies up or down in the middle of the analysis.

What if I told you that when you get into the weeds, even if you leave the companies in the same category they start in for the whole analysis, the small companies are still creating more jobs?

There are actually deep reasons for it, and it is a huge difference, not the sort of marginal difference that would be created by the effect you imagine. Small businesses that add up to the same amount of production as a larger business will create many more jobs, and will create more trade in the community per job. There are real and well known reasons for that. It is a really basic part of this topic, actually.

Small companies have lower average pay, when everything else is equal. They also require more workers. Ever hear the term "economies of scale?" Ever hear about a merger leading to "increased efficiency" or "reduced redundancy"? Notice that layoffs are mentioned at the same time. There is a reason for that. ;)

Like my dad said a few years back, "inefficiency is another word for jobs." (the context was robots and automation)

Jobs predate "money."

A neolithic hunter already has a job. And he can trade for other goods, because there is existing latent demand for what he can supply.

And if there is no demand, because he already sold enough buffalo steaks for everybody to eat, and nobody has freezers, he can go out and get additional supply and it does him no good. His supply can't create any demand; all it can do is satisfy existing demand in a way that benefits him.

People get all crazy thinking that money is some sort of magical force, but it just a medium of exchange that doesn't spoil and has predetermined value. The benefits of a system that encourages capital to move exist, but they're not the benefits you're claiming. The jobs are created by the demand existing, and then being serviced with supply. Encouraging capital movement would only create jobs where otherwise there was an impediment to capital movement. If a natural balance already existed, then injecting capital on the supply side just shifts around who gets the business, it doesn't change how much trade is happening. Whereas injecting capital on the demand side will increase the amount of trade that happens, because people will consume more. But people don't consume MORE because the store they're shopping at has extra money in the bank. That is insanity.

In a speculative activity, those willing to speculate are providing the demand, and whoever they give the money to then creates the supply.

If after the supply is created there is additional demand for that supply, then the speculators might get a return. If not, not.

Supply and demand are not titles that the people have, they are the forces involved in the formulas.

So yourself a favor and read The Wealth of Nations cover-to-cover.