I hope I won't be disillusioned by someone who has done research into Woz, but what I have heard of Woz has pretty much been all good. Seemingly kind hearted, personal integrity, not all about the money. While Jobs is the guy who lied to his supposed friend about how much he got paid for a project so he could embezzle money from said friend. I know which person I'd rather my children emulate.
On the "glasses seems to make it worse" bit. I got my eyesight tested when I got my license at 18. I ended up with a "needs glasses" in my license since "I'd need them soon anyway".
Today, I still only use them for driving, and even then only when it's dark out. I had a test a year or two back, and tested the same as I did back at 18. They told me I would have had significantly worse vision today had I decided to wear glasses full time back then.
Also, I got back from my 40th birthday dinner half an hour ago. Hooray for me.
Why the assumption that the AI would realize and acknowledge that humans created it? We have no conscious awareness of the maintenance of our internal organs, why assume that an AI would discern its own silicon? Sure, it has temperature sensors, but our body regulates itself as well without us being able to tell the exact temperature we are currently running at.
Do I think the most likely course of action for an AI would be wanton destruction? Not really. But I find it likely that it wouldn't have any real concept of how its actions affect others. Which means that if it should gain the ability to reach out in some way, there could be collateral damage through no ill will. Who knows. And that was rather my point. We simply can't claim to know how such an event as an AI becoming self aware might play out.
Yes, because that assumption is the premise for the article we are commenting on.
As for the rest of your post, that was pretty much the point of my own. We are so far away from achieving this, that we cannot fathom how it might turn out if we should.
If we were, it still wouldn't matter unless we had good reason to claim knowledge of his actual abilities once created.
That's how I see things when it comes to an AI. Believing we can say anything about how a self learning machine will decide to behave, seems to me a bit like saying the first to invent the wheel had the ability to imagine it being used on a Mars rover. That's how far away we are from creating an actual AI.
That's assuming morality is in any way relevant for an AI. Human morality is ever evolving and under discussion. It's not something that sprang up overnight. I see no compelling reason to take for granted that an AI would spend a single cycle considering whether its actions are "good" or "bad".
"To say that AI will start doing what it wants for its own purposes is like saying a calculator will start making its own calculations"
I so don't agree with that. The type of AI we are talking about here ("true" AI, as opposed to the stuff we see in games today), would need to be self learning. At least I don't see how it's realistic to believe we'll ever be able to sit down and code a fully functional proper AI. So we create the programming allowing it to learn and grow, and after that all bets are off. We have zero experience with what might happen, and can barely begin to speculate.
That's not to say I'm necessarily worried. But I am highly skeptical of anyone claiming to actually know how it will play out.
Saying "not teaching cursive" is equal to "not teaching handwriting", is like saying "not teaching spoken poetry" is equal to "not teaching your child to speak".
Cursive is _a form of_ handwriting. You know, as in not all handwriting is cursive, but all cursive is handwriting (funky fonts notwithstanding).
Does anyone even edit this place anymore? Wait, don't answer that.
I suspect you are being willfully obtuse, but in case you're not: dial-up and ISDN have always referred to specific technology. Broadband has meant "not dial-up" and "fast".
For that matter, dial-up has never meant high speed unless including the actual speed.
And we're full circle. Returning to my original post, what was considered fast way back when, is no longer so today. For the term broadband to retain its meaning of "fast Internet", it needs to refer to speeds that can be considered fairly snappy in today's reality, otherwise you might as well just call it "Internet connection". Which brings me back to my proposal of 10Mbit as a reasonable minimum. Rewind 10 years, and I would've been fine with 4Mbit.
That may be the technical definition, but the colloquial use as pertaining to Internet access is something else. From Wikipedia: "Finally, the term became popularized through the 1990s as a marketing term for Internet access that was faster than dialup access, the original Internet access technology, which was limited to 56 kbit/s. This meaning is only distantly related to its original technical meaning."
Dial-up, like broadband, is a term that encompasses various speeds. Just like you wouldn't get away with claiming your 9.6K ISP was "blazingly fast" when everybody else had long since upgraded to 14.4K, you shouldn't get away with using "broadband" as a term unless "broad" really is an applicable adjective. It has been a number of years since 4Mbps qualified.
As far as I can recall, Netflix's HD (not 4K) tops out at about 6Mbps. It could be as simple as Netflix deciding that your connection can't handle the higher quality stream and falling back to 2.5Mbps (or your provider throttling Netflix, for that matter). Which is fine for a tablet, but would likely be fairly noticeable on a decently sized TV.
I can but repeat myself. Just because it's an Internet connection that isn't totally useless, does not make it qualify to be described as "broadband" in my mind. For a provider to claim they offer broadband, they should offer 10Mbps as a minimum. If they don't, they're just offering "Internet". This is, of course, entirely my opinion, since there's no firm definition of the term broadband.
"I bring my Chromecast and stream a Blu-ray image from my media center at home"
And technically, that's not legal.
To which technicality in Norwegian law are you referring? Because I'd be willing to bet a fair bit of cash on you being dead wrong. I can even make a copy, as long as the person I'm giving it to is a friend or family member.
I max out my 75Mbps on a daily basis. I could, of course, live with a bit less, but significantly less and I'd need to find other solutions to some usage areas. For example, I upload full hard drive images to online storage as backups. It takes a good while already at 75Mbps. If I visit someone to watch a movie, I don't bring a selection of Blu-ray discs, I bring my Chromecast and stream a Blu-ray image from my media center at home. That's typically 30-40Mbps. I tried to upgrade my subscription, but it turns out I'll need to wait until my provider upgrades the local switch to gigabit.
I'm not saying my usage is representative of the average home user. But I would still say that 10Mbps is the absolute minimum to qualify as "broadband" today. Broadband didn't use to mean "an Internet connection", but rather "really fast Internet connection". At 10Mbps you can barely stream HD at reasonable quality, something I would say should be considered a normal use case today.