Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Key points about AI (Score 1) 236 236

1) Real AI will NOT be directly controlled by it's original programs. That is not AI, that is a well simulated AI.

Why should artificial intelligence be any different from natural intelligence? We can't act outside our programming, why would AI?

Intelligence tells you how to get what you wants. How you're wired tells you what you wants. Who you're attracted to, what foods you like and dislike, what activities you find enjoyable...your conscious self has zero control over those things. All you can do and decide how to go about getting in the things you're programmed to go after and avoid the things that you're programmed to dislike.

Oh, sure. Intelligence can help you draw complex conclusions. You want to eat a ton of crap, but you don't want the consequences of being obese. Intelligence lets you make the connection between overeating, obesity, and the consequences of it that you've been programmed to avoid. But you can't choose these things, you can't choose your end goals, and neither will AI.

Comment Re:No, she didn't (Score 1) 851 851

She got way more than she paid in.

Why does that matter? If she was allowed to opt out of the system, then asked for it in her later years when she realized she needed it, then you'd have a point. But she participated in the system the same as anyone who agreed with it. To not partake in the benefits after you've paid into it makes zero sense.

Everybody except the rich does.

First, that's not necessarily true. My father died this year at 65 years old. Do you think he got more than he paid in?

Second, why is it justifiable to take from the rich? It is their property, so if they're not benefiting from it, how do you justify taking it from them?

I actually am in favor of social security, but let's be honest and use valid arguments, shall we? First, a society that allows people who can't take care of themselves to suffer is a very cruel society, and not one I'd want to be a part of. Second, the rich do benefit from social programs, because a large number of homeless individuals in the society they live in isn't conducive to business and it will hurt their bottom line. Example: I have no children, but I bought a house near a place with good schools. My property taxes pay for that school, and although I don't benefit from the school directly, my property value appreciates at a greater rate as a result of it, giving me an indirect monetary benefit.

Comment Re:Defective (Score 1) 392 392

The driver should never use a feature of a car that can make it move in a way that it can hit a human.

Except for features of a car that are designed to function without a human. The entire point of moving to self-driving / self-parking cars is so you don't have to do it.

Now, we're not at that point yet, and I agree that in this instance it's the driver's responsibility. However, it's not defensible or ethical for Volvo to sell the pedestrian-detection feature separately from the self-parking feature anymore than it would be for them to sell seat-belts as an option. They know idiot drivers exist, they know the feature could save lives. If you don't offer a self-parking system with that capability, that's fine. However, if you have done the R&D to develop it, you better include it as a selling point of your improved self-parking system over other manufacturers, not as a separate feature. Doing otherwise is simply not ethical.

Comment Re:Funny, that spin... (Score 1) 421 421

Question: What role do people who think that AI research is dangerous hold in the field of AI research?

Answer: None...because regardless of their qualifications, they wouldn't further the progress of something they think is a very, very bad idea.

Asking AI experts whether or not they think AI research is a bad idea subjects your responses to a massive selection bias.

Yes. Nobody who worked in the Manhattan Project had any reservations whatsoever about building the atomic bomb, right?

Experts work in fields they're not 100% comfortable with all the time. The actual physicists that worked on the bomb understood exactly what the dangers were. The people looking at it from the outside are the ones coming up with the bogus dangers. You hear things like, "the scientists in the Manhattan project were so irresponsible they thought the first bomb test could ignite the atmosphere, but went ahead with it anyway." No, the scientists working on it thought of that possibility, performed calculations the definitely proved it wasn't anywhere near a possibility and then moved on with it. People outside the field are the ones that go, "The LHC could create a black hole that will destroy us all!" The scientists working on know the Earth is struck with more powerful cosmic rays than the LHC can produce regularly, so there's no danger.

It's just that they don't work in the field of AI, so therefore they must not have any inkling whatsoever as to what they're talking about.

Which is a 100% true statement. They're very smart people, but they don't know what they're talking about in regards to AI research, and are coming up with bogus threats that most AI experts agree aren't actually a possibility.

Comment Re:What does it say about you? (Score 1) 461 461

You'd have a point, if AOL was irrelevant.

The aol.com address most certainly is irrelevant to everything else you said. You haven't needed to have AOL as your ISP in order to have an aol.com e-mail address for over a decade. You're the guy that points to every German he meets screaming, "Nazi! Nazi!" World War II is over, and so are the days that you used to spend an usenet dreading that aol.com post that signaled a member of the masses just got access to the net. The masses are now the majority of the net, and they use gmail too.

What do you think of people who use Facebook as their primary online contact?

I don't really give a shit. I don't personally use Facebook, but I'm the weird one, not them. I recognize that I make people's lives more difficult when they ask me to get in touch with them via Facebook, because it really is the default these days, and I apologize while asking for a secondary contact option.

Comment Re:What does it say about you? (Score 4, Interesting) 461 461

Nothing on the internet says 'I'm a blithering idiot, please abuse me.' as quickly and concisely as @aol.com.

I consider judging people based on irrelevant categories to be far more damning.

Shortly after gmail came out, every other free webmail provider upped their storage amount in order to compete, including aol. Gmail at the time didn't provide imap access. You could access your mail via the web interface or pop. Aol, on the other hand, did provide imap, along with a ton of storage space, which allowed me to check my personal e-mail via my PDA's email client (remember those?), instead of its horrible browser.

I had a perfectly technical reason to switch to an aol address while everybody was switching to gmail.

Comment Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 1) 700 700

Unless, of course, we're all free to say we believe in any random thing as our religion and are therefore entitled to tax-free status.

Well, that's my point. That is the case. Anything else in unfairly promoting specific religions, which is constitutionally prohibited.

So, either prevent all religions from having tax exempt status, or accept that anything can be a religion and grant any organization (as long as it is a non-profit organization), tax-exempt status. I don't care which one you pick, but I think only those two options can be fair.

Comment Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 1) 700 700

Sorry, but it's awfully hard to take it seriously as a religion ... it has about as much credibility as being a Jedi or a Pastafarian.

Which is the same amount of credibility any religion has, considering what makes something a religion is the taking of certain axiomatic principles on faith rather than evidence.

Which I don't have any problem whatsoever with, mind you. I just don't like people using age of a religion as a way to discriminate against others. "My religion says the reason humans die is because they allowed themselves to be fooled by a talking snake" sounds exactly as weird to me as, "My religion says we were brought here from intergalactic worlds on DC-10's and were trapped in volcanoes where they set off atomic bombs." You want to believe either of those, I'm going to defend your right to do it.

Now, I know Scientology has done some pretty illegal stuff, and I'm fine with us going after them for that. I don't like that anyone would want to define what gets to be an acceptable religion and what doesn't though. I'm sure plenty of people really and truly believe in the Scientology stuff, and as far as I'm concerned they have the right to do so. I will, in fact, defend their right to do so, even though I don't believe any of it. Same as I would defend the right of anyone to be a Christian even though I'm not one.

Comment Re:Probably Xamarin (Score 3, Insightful) 96 96

People who want cross-platform on iOS and Android have had it since day 1. Write your logic in C or C++. Its how cross-platform has been done for decades. Then write a wrapper in whatever language the platform uses for the UI.

The problem is that most phone applications are typically 95%+ UI code. If you do that, you're not exactly going to save much time and effort.

Comment Re:Probably Xamarin (Score 1) 96 96

That's how they got cross platform for iOS and Android.

Actually, they've been pushing Cordova. Xamarin is an option, but the free starter edition that will work with the Community Edition of visual studio still looks far too limited for seriously development, while the business edition is unreasonably expensive.

The visual studio 2015 preview includes cordova projects targeting android, though.

Comment Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue (Score 1) 389 389

If you buy an expensive watch you're buying the skill and craftsmanship of the watchmaker.

Except that modern manufacturing process can beat a skilled craftman any day. People buy expensive watches because they're expensive. It's a status symbol. They have something that other people can't afford.

For that reason, the $10k edition of the apple watch will sell plenty. Like the old "I Am Rich" app

Comment Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue (Score 1) 389 389

And back in 2007 you'd be telling us the iPhone would present no threat to BlackBerry.

No, personally I always thought that the BlackBerry sucked so much that any alternative at all that would let people have mobile e-mail would instantly replace it, no matter how much it sucked. BlackBerry was the phone you went, "goddamnit, I need to replace my nokia or motoralla with this shit, because of my need to send and receive e-mail anywhere!"

And before that you'd have told us that the iPod would pose no threat to other mp3 players.

That one I'll cop to. In fact, I still don't understand it. The ipod is the worst music player I've ever seen. Back when it came out, I had a Windows PDA, and I thought that worked better.

Comment Re:Parody (Score 3, Informative) 255 255

Isn't satire supposed to be funny?

Actually, no. Satire can use humor, but it's not a requirement. It can use any other tools available, as long it is used to criticize a topic:

Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Comment Re:Parody (Score 4, Insightful) 255 255

"Satire" doesn't mean "Different".

In a reddit AMA, Khan explained what he wanted to show was the nature of how society finds violence acceptable in a kids show versus what they consider adult themed. He said the major difference between his short and the original power rangers cartoon was that when characters get shot, red liquid spurts out. Plus he showed titties. Other than that, it's the same type of fighting, with people hurting or killing others. But one is a kid's show and the other is "gritty".

It absolutely fits as satire and valid commentary.

Comment Re:One thing for sure (Score 2) 531 531

Isaac Asimov's books and stories were about why his laws were bad. The three laws are bad, wrong, and do not work. As illustrated by the man himself.

You don't know much about Isaac Asimov. He has stated in several occasions and at the foreword of many of his books that he created the three laws as a response to all the evil robots of science fiction. That it is insane to assume they would turn against us, that we'd have safeguards which would keep us safe, and that we should absolutely build artificially intelligence once we had the technology to do so. Here's one quote on the subject: "One of the stock plots of science fiction was that of the invention of a robot--usually pictured as a creature of metal without soul or emotion. Under the influence of the well-known deeds and ultimate fate of Frankenstein and Rossum, there seemed only one change to be rung on this plot.--Robots were created and destroyed their creator; robots were created and destroyed their creator: robots were created and destroyed their creator-- In the 1930's I became a science-fiction reader and I quickly grew tired of this dull hundred-times-told tale. As a person interested in science, I resented the purely faustian interpretation of science."

The three laws were written with ambiguity not because he wanted to show rules didn't work and our ego of thinking that we could create such rules would be our downfall (the Faustian interpretation he decried above), but because he wanted to make sure there would be some sort of conflict for his stories. However, the rules worked. Most of the time the conflict was a result of the imperfection of humanity: the robots were doing the right things, but we wanted to do something stupid/selfish/prejudiced.

At no point were robots meant to be feared. When their three laws appeared to fail, the moral of the story was always that they hadn't and were working perfectly well. That there was method behind the apparent madness. When a robot appear to lie, despite being ordered to tell the truth (thus apparently disobeying the second law), it lied because it determined the truth would be emotionally harmful to you, and it couldn't disobey the first law.

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...