Either zero the drive or drop it off a balcony. There is no third option.
Either zero the drive or drop it off a balcony. There is no third option.
As someone put it, a real AI would spend much of its time wondering whether to kill itself.
Ex Machina was quite nice actually, for the whole question of how to test whether a thing is sentient.
But I'd guess that the "brain-machine" is what produces/structures any phenomena/data, like being able to recognise a tree amongst all the patterns of colour, or the right moves in a game, whereas sentience is that which experiences that data — so artificial intelligence can be any clever data processing, sufficiently clever to impress us, like a computer being able to say "that's a tree" when its camera is pointed at a tree, whereas artificial sentience would be when that machine actually becomes sentient... actually starts experiencing what it is processing, and who knows if that's even possible.
"not in the field" is just a lame excuse, unless you want to have to have it that the Pope is the expert on God and nobody else can question his ideas. heck, i know when my doctor misdiagnosed me and was negligent, i don't have to be an expert in the field of medicine to know that.
And also, some are skeptics, some deniers, and some just know there's a reasonable difference of opinions.
True, but here's how it does works: you take that thing that requires creativity and can be made to wait, and whilst your subconscious works on it, you clean the toilet.
Actually I once had a brief to produce a post-modern take on a betting shop, as an art installation—and whilst cleaning the toilet it occurred to me that the counter of the betting shop should have the area where you pass your money through look like a toilet bowl.
Throwing your money down the drain; all money is crap; etc.
Unfortunately I procrastinated on it so long that at the end of it all I had to show was a lot of sketches of toilets.
Which is ironic. But then that's post-modern ironic for you. A sort of irony on irony, or in my case, ceramicky on ceramicky.
When I was studying architecture, they told us the story of the industrialist CEO who called in a tech to replace the doorknob to his office.
A week later the tech comes back and says, "you know, I've been thinking about the doorknob, and the problem isn't really the doorknob, it is the way the door works."
So the CEO agrees and asks the tech to work on the door.
A week later the tech comes back and says, "you know, I've been thinking about the door, and the problem isn't really the door, it is the layout of the corridor leading up to the door."
So this goes of for a few months and by the end the tech is redesigning the whole factory.
Design stops when you run out of time*
* Plus a few extra hours, I'd argue.
By "good" I mean, the cow can live well, and we can't. So then you have to include the carbon footprint of all the hospitals full of sick people. But of course before we even get to that argument, there's the whole issue of what's the optimal human diet anyway... and the author of that book claims vegetarianism ruined her health, over the decades. But that's also a complex topic, given that it is hard to show that many people do really well eating healthy meats when the national health advice for decades has been to not do that, so where's the healthy sample to draw on to show it clearly? Especially when we're talking about, not the people who do it for ten years, but the people who do it for fifty? So people like Keith end up simply having to go by their own experience.
But what we do know clearly is that obesity and diabetes rates have been steadily going up for the population, so something is wrong, and maybe it isn't just that people are not running enough marathons. For example, Tim Noakes, a sports scientist, ran many marathons and still got diabetes, so how many more was he supposed to run? Or was it just that, the standard healthy diet based on grain agriculture was wrong? And what's the carbon footprint of millions of people needing expensive treatments for diabetes and cancer and obesity?
Part of the issue is this notion of "growing food for humans". There's the "growing" part, ie. intensive agriculture, and there's the "for humans" part, ie. is it really a reasonably healthy diet for humans?
But I'm just saying these alternative ideas exist. If one wants to figure out which is right, I guess it is a matter of going off and reading a load of books and then trying stuff. I can only suggest that the alternative ideas are out there. Lierre Keith is pretty clear that a lot of land is only sustainably "farmed" by putting natural pasture cows on it, and there are grasslands where ruminants are the only thing that'll inhabit them. See you only get all that grain for your pasta and cereals by over farming it using fertilisers which come from fossil fuels, and so on. I suggest reading the book, and others like it, as I don't have a copy to hand to check quotes, but it is that sort of argument, amongst others.
For me it isn't just beef, I eat hearts and kidneys and livers and so on, and bone broths.
Our digestive systems are not as good as cows' for processing that stuff.
See The Vegetarian Myth, written by a long term vegan/vegetarian.
It's a problem that's already been solved.
There's something called the Pre/Trans Fallacy. It says that because neither nonsense nor supersense are common sense, the two get easily confused.
So a brilliant intuition can be taken for rubbish, and rubbish can be taken for a brilliant intuition. But there is a real difference: the brilliant intuition can be looked at rationally and carefully, whereas the nonsense, on closer examination, remains rubbish.
So I don't know whether their study was looking at whether people can recognise supersense when they see it, or whether the study was only looking at whether people merely recognise common sense.
The real intelligence is for those who can figure out the difference between supersense and nonsense. As in, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
It might depend on which particular engineer you get. After finding that my internal cabling was fine, his tests found that the copper in the road was passing ok on almost all tests, except that it wasn't doing well at protecting itself from interference (the "AC balance" value was low).
There were some spare copper cables in the road, so they tested each one to see which was best, and they then connected me to the best one. Broadband speed has gone up 60%, and seems stable. So I'm very happy.
I take it back, as we speak there are people out, pulling up manhole covers. It seems that the test the ISP can run, the "line test", doesn't tell the whole story. But if you can get an engineer comes to your site, they can run more detailed tests, and sure enough, he found something was out of whack with the copper running to the site. But the ISP seems to act like, well we ran a line test and it reported ok, so there's no problem and nothing we can do.
I've just been told there's currently no guarantee of upload speeds. So my upload can go down to 512Kbit and it would still be "working". Fibre To The Cabinet is such a wonderful tech, even BT can't be arsed to try to make it work.
And not just "eat less", but be happy and healthy. That's the real challenge. 10 years later. Ie. not a 21 day diet, but a lifestyle.
This is why Paleo/Banting gets advocated. Anyone can starve themselves. But increase their health whilst also increase their food intake and enjoy their meals and have more energy?
These days the Paleo/Banting/Real Food view is more or less, you can't outrun a bad diet, and the diet does make a big difference, but the exercise doesn't.
Also, the "healthy" diet most often recommended (low fat, balanced, etc.), is just wrong, so it was never going to work. Basically, because of the carbs. High Fat Low Carb does work, generally, except for people who have other issues as well. But basically, like this research, there is far more going on that just "you ate too much" — as Taubes put it, a child doesn't grow because he overeats, he overeats because he's growing. There is more going on that simple energy in/out.
Yet many traditional organisations continue to recommend a "balanced" diet" and, when it doesn't work for people, claim they're just eating a few bytes too many and not burning off the excess. Ie. it isn't our advice that's wrong, you're just lazy! So I appreciate your comment here in that light also.
Well, people can try Paleo for themselves and see whether it works for them. The big problem has always been that things like diet are very hard to test rigorously. So nutrition has had a lot of pseudo-science, and sometimes, your great grandma was indeed right that pasta does make you fat.
"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI