I think this is an issue that should be decided by the citizens of the North Pole. Just chain a slotted box to the pole (so the wind doesn't blow it away). Come back in 10 years and count the votes. Oh, there's not actually a pole there?
1) already rich --
So what? I never said his motivation was personal profit. There are many motivations to be self serving.
2) the head of an extremely well-funded (Paul Allen money) NON-PROFIT, with the business model of "let's try to do some cutting edge AI research with open source code"
So what? He wants, for whatever reason, to make AIs. Is he ignoring the fact that programmers (and since this is open source everyone will have the source code) will decide to intentionally make the AI autonomous. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone will be working on autonomy long before the AI actually becomes functional.
and 3) an actual world-class expert in the field, rather than a smart person prognosticating about something he only casually understands
He is an expert in something that does not yet exist? That's ridiculous. There is a clearly real danger here. That does not necessarily mean stop, but it certainly does mean that extreme caution is warranted.
figures out the algorithm. The problem here is that the mob has figured out how to abuse hashtags. So how long would it take for the mob to also figure out that they can take over the hashtag by making "thoughtful" ratings on the mobs favorite meme. The mob can iterate this process faster than the tweet masters can fix it.
"Evolution." There is nothing un-Darwinian about non-biological evolution. Natural selection applies to any variable system in which survival or propagation success can depend on modifications to the system. In fact, evolution in a self-aware AI could proceed at an exponentially higher rate because
1. the generation time could be measured in milliseconds rather than decades
2. the AI could intentionally direct the changes to maximize success rather than depending on the MUCH slower processes of chance mutation.
didn't think of that. Two of the smartest people on the planet apparently just forgot to consider the blindingly obvious fact that programmers are not going to intentionally program AI to have it's own agenda. Exept that:
1. Some programmers at some point will try to program autonomy and
2. Shit happens
Musk and Hawking are clearly smart enought to consider the autonomy argument and then DISCARD it. I, for one, welcome our cybernetic overlords, but lets not pretend that AI autonomy is not a threat. Mr. Etzioni has his own self-serving reasons to pooh-pooh warnings that could interfere with his business model. And I am so happy that I finally got to use the term "pooh-pooh" in a
Thank you! My own personal Grammar Nazi was screaming in my head. You have given vent to the frustrations of... well, I don't know.... several of us.
The conclusion is deceptive. They say 98% of people get ingredients they love. But that could be by chance since 98% of people probably like ANY pizza that does not contain anchovies.
The OP says that "The radio component has * low attenuation* in rainy conditions with large refracting raindrops". I think they mean "high attentuation". TFA says that radio is disrupted by rain.
Same shareholder attitudes?
Balmer once called Linux a cancer that was eating the world's software. Sounds like M$ now has a terminal case. That's what it sounds like, but I'm sure they are lying.
The IP is nothing special. It's the user base that has value. They can't get the users without the restricitons.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Some parts of the Constitution refer to the rights of Citizens... presumably US Citizens. The 4th Amendment makes not such distinction. People are people and have rights regardless of where they live.
Should air be private owned? The airwaves belong to everyone.
I can't imagine any rationale for private ownership of a ubiquitous asset with no physical form. This does not conform to existing property law and would not enure to the advantage of the public.... but rather only to the benefit of a few wealthy corporate bosses. Exactly whose side are you on?
You are quite right. Which is why I should not post on