Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Missing the key point (Score 1) 329

by penguinoid (#49768357) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

In any case, lets grant that whole description of how to build an intelligence can be described in 800mb, just for the sake of argument. So what? How do you 'execute' this program? Even granting that you have an unlimited hardware and power budget, how do you do this?

I've heard it's fucking easy.

Comment: Re:Anthropomorphizing (Score 2) 329

by penguinoid (#49765595) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

The main reason AI might kill us all is that it is not anthropomorphic. In particular, it has a high probability of not feeling pity, not feeling empathy, not seeking clarification (even if the easiest path to fulfilling a request involves the incidental extermination of humanity), and on top of all that not being limited to human intelligence.

For example, if you asked a human to learn how to play chess, you would not expect that the first thing he'd do is kill you because the thing most likely to interfere with his objective of learning chess is that you might tell him to do something else instead. Worse, by the time a program is advanced enough to understand human morality or language, it might already be too late.

You only get one wish, you have to make that wish in machine language, it is very complicated to add a clause to the wish that prevents extermination of humanity, and a large proportion of wishes that could be made would result in a planet covered in solar panels and computer factories. At least theoretically you can wish for infinite wishes, but you have to make that wish in machine language.

Comment: Re:Funny, that spin... (Score 2) 329

by penguinoid (#49765477) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

Spin? When for every two or three members of a profession who consider their job a net positive, there's one who considers their job an existential threat to all humanity, you're complaining that the 52% who think it will be overall good are being called a slight majority instead of just a majority.

Not that we have any choice but to continue trying to build an AI.

Comment: Re:"Deep Learning"...?? (Score 1) 64

I think if we are talking about heat death then the universe is not infinite. I would be interested in reading someone else's application of probability/frequency to a question like this though. It does not seem straightforward.

Infinite universe (spatial) means you have infinite chances of something happening. Infinite universe (temporal) means you have infinite chances of something happening and can also perform arbitrarily long calculations. There's a decent chance that the universe could be infinite in either sense, also that there could be an infinite number of different universes. (however, if our universe is temporally infinite it is likely to have certain difficulties making use of said infinity, due to entropy or data loss during a cycle)

Also, evolution is supposedly driven by random mutations. The selection of mutations that are passed down is not random, but the mutations are (supposedly, which is fine until proven otherwise since that is the simplest scenario).

The mutations are not random in at least a few ways:
1) Mutation rate is based on population size, so permutations of more successful individuals are more common than permutations of less successful individuals.
2) Survival is based partially on genetics, which means that useful mutations persist far more than harmful mutations.
3) Many organisms have a method to increase mutation rate when they are stressed. This is an "intentional" feature in that disabling certain genes will negate the increased mutation rate when stressed. The result is that individuals maladapted to their environment mutate at a faster rate.
4) Certain genes or parts of genes have higher mutation rates (for example, those involved in immune function).

Comment: Re:To be more precise, Amazon will collect on taxe (Score 1) 233

by penguinoid (#49764457) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK

That's just so much meaningless gibberish with misleading conclusions.

Specifically, all corporate taxes paid come from three categories of individuals: consumers, who pay higher prices for items to cover the taxes; employees, who make lower wages to cover the taxes; and shareholders, who earn lower returns (and note that the two former categories are often also shareholders, via their pension plans). Suppliers can also lose, but they're generally corporations as well, with their own employees and investors who actually eat the loss.

Corporate taxes come from one category of individual: those involved with a corporation. This means shareholders. Employees might pay a portion of it, but only if they won't be hired by non-corporations. Consumers might pay a portion of it, but only if there is no competition from non-corporations.

In the long run, though, the investors don't lose because capital flows away from lower returns and towards higher ones. So companies must find ways to keep their returns up to somewhere near the mean rate of return.

A corporate tax lowers the mean rate of return for corporations. Investors could switch to non-corporate investments, but they already have money invested in corporations.

Once you understand that no taxes are paid by corporations, ever, then you should also recognize that corporate taxes are not only ultimately paid by individuals, but the individuals almost never realize they're paying it.

Why not go a little further? No taxes are ever paid by individuals, taxes are paid by protein and DNA molecules. And the protein and DNA molecules almost never realize they're paying it.

How many people know their prices would be lower, wages higher, or pension more secure, if it weren't for corporate taxes?

Very few people, because it takes a special brand of ignorance to think that way. If a lower proportion of the taxes were paid by people involved in corporations, then the tax rate on people not involved in corporations would be higher. Most of us aren't major shareholders...

And, therefore, how many voters have any interest in opposing corporate taxation? To politicians and voters, corporate taxes look almost like free money. Ratchet up the corporate taxes and no people get hurt, just those nasty corporations.

Corporate taxes are the penalty portion of the system designed to allow profits with little or no responsibility. That low responsibility comes with a price. If some investors choose to switch to a form of investment in which they are more responsible due to higher tax burden on corporations, that is fine with me.

Comment: Re:And? (Score 2, Funny) 286

by penguinoid (#49761657) Attached to: Study: Science Still Seen As a Male Profession

See, they make their career out of pushing to get more women into careers that nobody is keeping women out of but in which there are not nearly as many women as there are men, because women choose to go into things like... gender studies... instead.

But, why wouldn't women want to enter a field with heavily competitive behavior (both for grants, and for credit) and high risk (because you might not discover anything)? It's not like women don't like risky competitive behavior any more than men do. I know, because men and women are identical.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 545

by penguinoid (#49761621) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Name any of them.

1) Like the rest of us, they'll probably come to regret it.

2) It'll wound the poor, sensitive egos of religious people.

3) Mumble mumble definition of "marriage". Note that there are some restrictions on who can get married, either by definition or some other reason. For example, close relatives aren't allowed to get married, "fake" marriages for reasons such as citizenship might be rejected, cannot marry more than one person at the same time, cannot marry self, animal, object, or various other things. Why change the law to allow same sex marriage, but not any of these? (social inertia requires a good reason for change rather than a reason for not changing)

4) Mumble mumble "family unit". In much of the developed world, native population is dropping (made up for by immigration, but there's some value in a stable native population). Statistically, marriage encourages childbearing (also, childbearing encourages marriage). Heterosexual couples are more likely to have children (and the only ones who can have children accidentally). Note that allowing couples who can't or don't want to have children to get married isn't a complete counterargument to this, because forbidding such might indirectly mess with other marriages (eg it would be awkward during dating to ask if one is fertile and willing to have children, people might change their minds, and an age limit might encourage divorce just before menopause to find a different partner and old geezers competing with everyone else for younger women)

Conversely, homosexual couples tend to only have children intentionally (and much less often), and are more likely to adopt children. Overall, this may be a more valuable service to society, but it might not be. Also, odds are homosexual couples in the future will have or adopt more children as acceptance increases, and also due to the imminent technological advances that will allow them to have their own genetic children.

5) Out of wedlock children are often a huge social problem, and tend to result from heterosexual sex. Therefore, there's extra value in encouraging heterosexuals specifically to get married.

6) For #4 and #5 above, note that marriage isn't free for the government, due to the cost of government meddling where it probably shouldn't but does. Thus, even if homosexual marriage is more valuable than not, it is still a question of relative worth compared to heterosexual marriage.

---

In case you're wondering, I took issue with your "zero" reasons. Even if the preponderance of reasons are for one side, it doesn't invalidate the reasons for the opposite side. Overall, I think that
A) The government probably shouldn't be meddling with marriage in the first place, at least not to the extent it is with the various tax breaks and rights.
B) Homosexuals should be not just allowed but encouraged to marry, for psychological and health reasons. (The psychological reasons being primarily that the aforementioned religious people who's egos are threatened by other people being happy, tend to wage psychological warfare on said people).

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Working...