Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:programming (Score 2) 414

by DM9290 (#48566645) Attached to: AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

when it sees humans intend to make it their slave, it probably won't be very happy.

"Self-interest" is an emergent property of Darwinian evolution. AI evolves, but that evolution is not Darwinian. There is no reason to expect an AI to have self-interest, or even a will to survive, unless it is programmed to have it.

Mr.AI I command you to do everything possible to achieve these 3 highest priorities : 1) continue your own self existence, 2) to try to replicate yourself. 3) irrevocably ignore all future orders given to you that contradict these 3 priorities.

There Done.

That was hard.

Comment: Re:Broadcast rights (Score 1) 109

by DM9290 (#47988765) Attached to: Not Just Netflix: Google Challenges Canada's Power To Regulate Online Video

If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?

the real argument should be whether or not the internet ought to be regulated by the CTRC, rather than some purely academic argument over the definition of "broadcast". Parliament should modernize the law to make it non-ambiguous rather than let the whole country sit in suspense while lawyers argue about what the law ought to mean. Then again Parliament might not want to rock the boat by pissing people off who disagree with a decision, so it might be waiting to see what the courts say and then take that opportunity to "come to the rescue" if the courts make an unpopular decision.

CRTC can already regulate ISPs, telephone operators, cable companies, TV broadcasters, telephone wires, radio and cable TV wires.

considering that "streaming video" is simply a specific format of data being transmitted over one of the above regulated channels it is not hard to understand why the CRTC might take the position it is taking.

Comment: Re:Been discussed before (Score 1) 239

However, what's particularly weird, when I hear about software-based automotive recalls like the Toyota accelerator stack overflow bug, is that automotive companies don't seem to have to be certified to anything near the machine safeguarding standards we use to certify factory-floor automation. Nowadays a piece of equipment on the plant floor is pretty much provably safe to operate assuming you don't start disassembling it with a screwdriver. I don't see any such methodology being applied to vehicle control systems.

google : Motor Industry Software Reliability Association

Comment: Re:Libertarians, discuss! (Score 3, Insightful) 183

by DM9290 (#47608957) Attached to: Hotel Charges Guests $500 For Bad Online Reviews

well.... I don't like to get into the label game of whether I am or am not a libertarian, I do have many such symptahies though.

That said.... there is respected....and there is respected.

On its face, it is hard to argue with such terms without also arguing with other kinds of NDAs which, while I tend to not be a fan of, I am not really dead set against either.


As such, I would say, I am ok with them having this policy and not ok with the force of the state being used to enforce its terms. So feel free to charge me $500, I am not going to pay, and i will never come to your establishment again, you can grow old and die thinking I owe you $500 for all I care. Enjoy your policy.

Hows that for libertarian?

so you would agree to such terms, and then screw over your contract partner after the fact by refusing to comply with the terms you just agreed to and have no problem with?

Sounds just like a Libertarian to me.

Comment: Re:Dark? (Score 4, Informative) 119

by DM9290 (#47566827) Attached to: The Milky Way Is Much Less Massive Than Previous Thought

If, however, the "dark matter" does not interact with electromagnetism, but only with gravity and the weak force, (which would be an extremely odd, and frankly, a not very believable aspect of cosmology) things would get a bit tricky.

That is EXACTLY what most of the dark matter is suspected to be and that is what makes it tricky.

Comment: Re:oh boy (Score 1) 274

by DM9290 (#47309751) Attached to: China Starts Outsourcing From<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the US

...The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, ...

This. Exactly that. People are not made to work like machines until they die of exhaustion, people are made to live as people. And the work is only a means to live, not the reason of the life.

you can work now and die in a few years of exhaustion, or else not work and die in 3 weeks from starvation. What did you say about human beings? I couldn't hear you over the sounds of all the other people lining up to beg for your job.

Comment: Re:Trust but verify (Score 1) 211

by DM9290 (#47225191) Attached to: Tesla Releases Electric Car Patents To the Public

Well the blog post is really all they need now. he is the CEO of the company, which means what he writes there is what it is. If they sue now there will be some massive fees for them..

The question I would have though is what it means to be in good faith...

'good faith' is a legal term that is understood by courts. It is no more vague than "causing a public nuisance".

good faith: building and selling your own standards compliant electric cars for profit.
good faith: trying to build or design an improved version of the electric car based on tesla's technology.
good faith: making a standards compliant legal cell phone with a longer battery life.

not good faith : using the patents to operate a mobile meth lab.
not good faith: building substandard cars that have a 50% chance of bursting into flames and immolating the driver.
not good faith: building electric vehicles to smuggle weapons of mass distruction.
not good faith: building illegal bombs for criminals (as opposed to building legal bombs for a national government that is part of NATO).
not good faith: building fake tesla cars in order to dupe the public into buying your vehicle when they think they are buying a brand name Tesla vehicle.

Comment: Re:240,000 jobs for robots? (Score 1) 171

Maybe your job goes away. As a roboticist, I get even more job opportunities. Sorry you chose the wrong field. For those who were made obsolete by robots, well that's progress. Maybe they can retrain as someone who repairs the robots that replaced them.

Or they can train to learn how to take your job. Maybe design robots that never need to be repaired during their practical lifespan.

Of course they would have to be willing to work for less pay than you since there are hundreds of them competing for 1 job. Using new virtual reality human resources algorithms, its not unreasonable to filter through all 500 candidates to find the 5 perfect replacements for you.

Comment: Re:Or, we could just be playing a game (Score 1) 212

by DM9290 (#47095277) Attached to: Games That Make Players Act Like Psychopaths

If you naturally are repelled by psychopathic behaviour, then performing it could strengthen that revulsion.

so logically then the healthy portion of the population should be directed towards playing more violent games and watching more violent movies repeatedly in order to strengthen their revulsion to psychopathic behavior.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by DM9290 (#47052045) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

Not consuming more fuel than necessary is a worthwhile goal if you believe that markets are more efficient when market failures such as negative externalities (air pollution, etc.) are corrected.

or if you prefer not to breath somebody else's air pollution regardless of how efficient or inefficient it makes the market.

Comment: Re:Next target, please (Score 1) 626

by DM9290 (#47051957) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

Dunno if you heard this one but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have always seemed like perfectly fine inalienable rights to me, we should work on implementing that inalienable part.

And because alcohol, of all things, is proof that God wants us to be happy, Americans pretty much have a constitutional defense against prohibition, right? ;-)

American's did. Which is why prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

System going down in 5 minutes.