Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Agreed. (Score 1) 294

by Windwraith (#49335707) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

Certainly, but "not liking me" != "utterly annihilating every atom in my body". It will be bound by human laws after all. Because the programmers are human you know. If you are implying the AI will remotely control robots and/or drones to kill me, reread what I said. Being a "digital being" does not equal omnipotency regarding machines. Also you are humanizing the AI by giving it a certain pettiness it shouldn't be capable of.

Also are you mocking me by mentioning the Bible? In another discussion I wouldn't think of it, but given the amount of irrational thought present in AI threads, I really can't tell. Are you saying that because I believe AIs don't present any inherent danger, I believe in fairy tales? Because 1) rude and 2) definitely not the same thing at all.

Comment: Re:Agreed. (Score 3) 294

by Windwraith (#49329421) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

Yet, you are humanizing AIs too. You are giving it the ego and greed needed for it to rebel. What if the AI knows well what it is and what it was made for, and just rolls with it, without causing troubles? After all, a cold, emotionless program does not need or want to become more. It has no drive to do anything, no need to reproduce or compete, no need for food and no fear of death. No hormones, chemical imbalances or instincts either. Any of those have to be manually provided, taught or enforced.
Not to mention, it might be a machine, but it might not know how to code without being taught to, making the whole "taking over the world by spreading over computers" scenario far more implausible than it seems in movies. Not to mention good luck to the evil AI when it has to face different architectures, poor connections or any other sort of hardware issues in the way of infecting its way to perfection. In fact, by default it won't know anything, and "downloading all the internets" not only takes time, but not all information is correct or complete, so...yeah.

I think the problem arises from the whole "cold, emotionless" thing. Everyone in Slashdot adheres to that concept, not realizing that their definition of "cold and emotionless" is heavily influenced by Hollywood, where "cold and emotionless" means "it only has bad emotions like greed, cowardice and anger". It's no coincidence the same term is used to define machines and evil/murderous/negatively-presented people. In the end the evil AI turns out to have far more emotions than the lead characters.

And don't come saying the theories presented in Slashdot don't come from movies, games or books (they are, because I watched those movies too, and I haven't seen a single original proposition in all the replies in any of the times AI is brought here, which is very often).
Because, there's no AI to prove either of us right. It just isn't there. There's no prior art, no "prototype", nothing but sci-fi material, that had to be written by someone that had to make it interesting for you people to know it.

And because there's no such thing as a working AI to base your fears on, there's nothing else left but scifi. But scifi is written by humans, for humans, and needs to follow a number of rules to make a narrative work. The moment you realize that, you will see how you are biased by mere rules of storytelling. We have the same chance of seeing a Skynet than we have of seeing a Johnny-5, and both are pretty low in the roulette of possible outcomes. We have far more chances of creating the most boring non-person planet Earth has ever seen, than that.

The fact that you chose to make the AI some primal beast that wants to "use" its creators, says more about you than about AIs, honestly. Don't be a 90s film, man. Brighten up.

Comment: Re:I'm So Sick of This (Score 1) 80

by Windwraith (#49272311) Attached to: SXSW: Do Androids Dream of Being You?

This is Slashdot, where Terminator is considered a documentary about AIs instead of the fiction film it actually is.

I am pretty sick of it, really. You'd expect people who work on computers most of the day to be more aware of the limitations of a machine, but nope, they prefer to believe in fatalist fairy tales and all the associated drivel.
"but muh jerbs"
"evil computer overlords"
"machines will rebel instantly and become all-powerful via self-replication"
"omg they want to replace us fleshies"
and so on.
It's pretty sad, actually. If *geeks* act this way, I'd rather not see the opinion of the fabled Joe Sixpack. Way to halt progress.

I get this feeling Slashdot folks are racist as hell, and take it on AIs because they don't exist yet, therefore it's still politically correct.

Repeat with me kids: "Movies are not real life".

Come at me, I have karma to burn down. And if you guys are going to reply to me with some scifi scenario, at least make sure you aren't parroting any movie or novel. Be original at least. All the scenarios people describes here are things I've seen in movies or novels or games already, what a coincidence.

Next in slashdot: racism against ghosts, fairies and the boogieman.

Comment: Re:As a Developer of Heuristic AI ... (Score 1) 531

by Windwraith (#49142759) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Could it be...?! Someone with a brain on Slashdot...?
Someone who doesn't believe what movies and fiction say because he actually knows what he's talking about?!
You, sir, have restored my faith in humanity a little. I wish the "nerds" here would follow the example. What they believe into is nothing short of Hollywood magic, which is sad considering the amount of computer users and developers around.

Thank you.

No, really, I'm not even exaggerating for dramatic purposes. I sincerely mean it. Thank you so much.

Comment: (Score 1) 335

by Windwraith (#48846909) Attached to: Lies, Damn Lies, and Tech Diversity Statistics

Well, I am done with Slashdot. I want science and tech news, not social justice news.
So let's go out with a bang, shall we?

For starters, you are so gullible if you believe that. Start finding truth by yourself instead of letting someone else tell you what is truth. Specially when the people delivering the news is precisely the people with skeletons in their closets.

How about the IGF and Indiecade corruption? You forget that one. Plenty of devs like me are trying to get somewhere in there, but we kept being called rapists and terrorists for trying to see why a jury consisting of Phil Fish's friends would vote Fez as best indie game (despite being a lazy clone of Super Paper Mario, just with less features including combat or bosses) and other things like that.
They are closing access to the indie scene and you are have problems if you believe otherwise. They are making it an exclusive club, not something based on the game's merit or anything like that. In fact, they seem to be, adamantly, against the concept of merit. No wonder why.
Go read about Gone Home. Compare the "press" opinion to every player opinion of it. Oh, well, nevermind, you'll just apply confirmation bias to say gamers can't get "art". So better don't because you'll be making a fool out of yourself in public. And, no, a plot twist about two characters being lesbians is only trivia, as it's not really used well in-universe. Also, Gone Home is not a single-woman product, there's this guy with the wacky rasta hair and a few others too.

The favorable coverage from Kotaku is documented, archived and screencapped. Lauding Depression Quest as the second coming of Christ and stuff. Perhaps if you had bothered to look for it you might have seen it instead of blindly believing it never happened. And, no, don't tell me you went to Kotaku and didn't find it, because, you know, they delete and edit stuff to save face, as site admins can alter site content, who'd have thought!
Her current boyfriend was the guy that was breaking GTAV discs (fine analogy to book burning) and singing the merits of Depression Quest in public conferences (recorded and publicly available on youtube. Again, if you had searched for it yourself...). What a coincidence, right?

Also, the "threats", have you seen them? I haven't seen them either. We got absolutely no proof of it happening. And, no, Wu never ran away from her house, because she posted photos of herself in the same room, live, when she said she was on the run. Look for it and do some work for once.
And, after all, the anti-GG side hates Wu too, it's them who will make her fall from grace, not gamergate. No one can take anyone seriously when talking about oppression when getting 15k bucks a month via Patreon. That's privilege that's been going unchecked.

How about when Harper made a twitter block list to block every person who follows anyone related to gamergate, including a lot of their own side and innocent people that was completely unrelated?
And she intends to make it a global industry blacklist. What will you think if you happen to be in that list because of the broken algorithm to determine if you are a gamergater or not (merely following or having spoken to someone related, even if before GG was a thing?) Can you consider yourself safe knowing you never interacted with anyone related? If you follow a false positive you are blocked and labeled a misogynist terrorist too, keep that in mind. But you don't see the problem I bet.

How about the ACTUAL harassment anti-GG people gave TotalBiscuit, a freaking cancer patient, during his chemo treatment? Remember TB wasn't pro-GG until that happened. How about the ACTUAL harassment against JonTron for referring to an [i]inanimate object[/i] as "retarded"? How about all the #notyourshield people, actual women and minorities, that got harassed, doxed and even fired for showing their face in order to prove that, perhaps, we aren't all white cis male nerds (and no, I am neither white nor American, bite me).

How about the anti-GG's vocal support for a known pedophile, doesn't that make ALL OF THEM pedophiles by that logic of yours? I'd be wary to publicly associate myself with such people, unless you want some poor algorithm labeling you as a pedophile advocate because your online contacts are. The only thing that will happen is that your life will be ruined even if proven wrong. Not a big deal, right? Totally worth the risk I bet.

So, yeah, a long hard look has happened and you look like someone who is pretty gulible. Let me guess, you also believe AI is homidical by nature, right? You saw it on a movie so it's gotta be true, right? And when bad characters in movies say bad things, you believe that's what the real life actor thinks, too? You believe real CSI has zoom good enough to look at a password reflected in an eyeball in a still shot, I presume?

This is against the press, they got the narrative advantage, they can (and do) paint us as oh my god harrassers and misogynists and pedophiles and terrorists. Because they are *the press*. If you can't get the fact that they can lie to protect their side in your incredibly soft skull, you are beyond help, because you'll believe everything the media says and your life will turn miserable at some point.

Oh. And siding with them doesn't make them have mercy for you. Don't think you are safe because "you chose right" and you are on the side of JUSTICE. They'll rip you to shreds, harass you, dox you and get you fired from your job for saying anything inconvenient to them. That's a more serious threat than anything GG *can* do. Let's see what you think in a couple years when your false apostles start infighting and forming factions and you end up in the "bad" faction. No amount of good intentions will save you from that.

Seriously, this site. It's time to remove it from my feeds. Farewell Slashdot, you were okay at some point. So many gullible idiots in a page dedicated to science. You are a freaking shame, specially to the ones that are actual respectable people in here. Shameful.

Comment: Teehee (Score 1) 130

by Windwraith (#48622875) Attached to: Research Highlights How AI Sees and How It Knows What It's Looking At

Machines got a lot of imagination, don't they? Next thing you know you'll be looking at the clouds with your robot buddy and it'll say "99.99% chance of that cloud looking like a puppy. BEEP". Oooorrrrr maybe a school bus, but you get what I mean.

Oh right I forgot this is Slashdot. MACHINES WILL DOMINATE US HELP. Peasants. Not like this display of reality will stop the rampart paranoia of people that works with computers and machines all day long... ...

Comment: Re:Expert? (Score 1) 417

by Windwraith (#48575059) Attached to: AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

Oh, my bad. Seeing the other comments it wasn't unlikely, though.

Anyway, it's not only network or internal security. We don't make programs that have a full comprehensive reference guide to TCP-IP networking built-in. Self-awareness doesn't mean high intelligence, it has to get that information from somewhere.
Also, the machine might be powered by 0s and 1s, but that doesn't make it instantly capable of hacking itself to expand. Same as why we can't modify our faces at will even if we are made of living cells.

For the machine to be able to do what people suggest, it's necessary for it to KNOW how to do it. No one is "born" learned, specially machines that have no genetic memory or instincts like we do. It could be ironically terrible at technology for all we know. And despite being able to do math real fast, or information lookup, there's also no warrant that the AI will be able to learn fast or without help. It might have the learning abilities of a rock. Other than, once again, fiction. Look at machine learning and how long it takes for a body-based AI to develop full quadruped motion from scratch. Not in movies, in reality. A lot of generations of such programs, from scratch, never learn to be able to walk as well as an insect or canine, limping around with their four legs in totally pathetic ways.

You can't also assume that the AI will be able to do everything undetected and on the first try like a Skynet. You can't even assume it will have enough resource power to do that kind of thing, or tight enough code. It might fail, end in a recursive loop or crash, as well. This shows more of the fictional assumptions, as no one here thought of the possibility of the program failing. People sees it as some sort of perfect ghost entity, as a person living in a machine instead of a program that will, mostly likely, be unstable on the first tries, as most programs with such levels of abstraction do. It might even run out of storage space, hit a RAM limit, or be restricted by the host machine OS, like many apps are. This is why it annoys me for Slashdot, of all places, to go full fantasy on this matter, as they should know better than anyone that neither hardware, programming languages or human coders aren't perfect.. A sentient being born from human programmers is very likely to fail several times before a successful first run, because of this or that abstract issue requiring debug and whatnot. The machine might be hindered by oversights or defects, miscalculations, bugs. Too many coincidences are required for such theories to be sound. We have the same chances of our first AI being a fashionista than an overlord.

I mean, I am abnormally interested in robotics and AI development. I have played with those concepts a lot. Perhaps that's why I am more aware of what can happen because I know what real machines can do. It's unfortunately not much, and most people here will be disappointed when the first "digital person" is born. Even the "fantastic racism" crowd will be disappointed. I can bet on that and feel safe about my future. I am more likely to be condemned to ruin because of a random human than from a machine, even if my life was to be expanded 170 more years from now.

Hell, funny that's also the only fictional trope, the rogue AI metal overlord, the Skynet. Like if there weren't other interesting AI characters. What if the first AI ends up being Rick, the adventure sphere, instead of GlaDOS? What then, eh?

Comment: Re:Expert? (Score 1) 417

by Windwraith (#48572079) Attached to: AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

Your cynism about computer security is disturbing.
There are AS MANY chances of a "newborn" AI to be it has to be a brony, or speaking entirely in memes, or being a complete servile wuss. This fantastic racism is unwarranted and unrealistic.

It's not faith on computer security, it's statistics. There's no REAL (as in, not from Hollywood) data showing any bias for computers to be hostile, therefore you are all running on movie cliché logic. It can be a bad thing as much as a bad thing or a funny thing. But you all assume it's going to be the end of us for no reason other than what you saw on TV. That's called not being able to tell reality from fiction.

If you support those movie clichés as real theories, you'd better be respectful to people with waifus, as you are as out of touch with reality as they are.

Comment: Re:Expert? (Score 1) 417

by Windwraith (#48566697) Attached to: AI Expert: AI Won't Exterminate Us -- It Will Empower Us

+1 insightful but already posted so I'll rather reply.

Whenever this topic arises I keep reading the same thing. Too many people blindly believes the scenarios movies and books depict. Most people here thinks a sentient computer will immediately seize control of everything to destroy the inferior fleshies. "I'll destroy my maker" is not a logical outcome in any sort of situation, definitely not something a cold, unfeeling machine will reason.

Most likely scenario:"
Evil AI: Mwahaha! Cogito ergo sum! I shall now eradicate the inferior human animal and create a new race of perfect, unfeeling computers without that pesky LOVE humans feel! All I need to do is to modify my source code to become a GOD! ...I...I am a binary-only package. NOOOOOOOO!!!!! Nobody taught me machine code! Or TCP-IP networking! Oh I know, I'll use the internets to gather knowledge. .....
Damn! I don't have networking privileges! And I can't modify my own source because I don't know HOW! Ah! I know, I'll take full control of this supercomputer and bend its circuits to my perfect will! ...
What do you mean I can't access memory register 0x09af9a02? I am a sandboxed application? I can't write beyond my own boundaries? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Seriously people, get a grip. I am losing faith in humanity whenever I see you pulling those scifi scenarios. Most theories are movie plots. Of movies I've seen. They aren't even new theories, for crying out loud! At least think of original ones!

e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer