Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Too soon (Score 2, Interesting) 130

The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.

The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.

  If we compare a radiation worker that only does administrative work and accumulates 1mSv to one that works in a hotlab and accumulates 16mSv we should see a 16 times increase in radiation related cancer according to the LNT, but that's not what we see in the real world.

Comment Re:Already there (Score 1) 421

The focus on consciousness as a guiding beacon and the insistence that consciousness is a indivisible unity is something philosophers made up because they needed something to debate endlessly with no chance of every getting anywhere.

If we define any umbrella term to be indivisible we can have the same pointless masturbation over its unattainable special snowflakeyness.

We acknowledge that a Nation or Computer or Corporation is something consisting of components that can be identified and described with some degree of precision but when it comes to consciousness there's suddenly a refusal to accept that it could be broken down to components only, there have to be some core that's pure consciousness to it despite the fact that we can enumerate components that if removed from a human would reduce him to something that pretty much everyone would agree on is something not conscious. Or do you think a person with no sense of touch, smell, vision, hearing, emotions, no language or object recognition, no motor control, no memory, no planning and executive capability would still be a magical conscious being?
If you do, please tell me what precisely he still have left that is consciousness, and oh, if you name a component that I forgot to remove that's of course not an argument for magical consciousness, it's an argument for my list of subcomponents being incomplete.

And with that out of the way, how come that artificially implementing a component of what we refer to as consciousness isn't actually a step towards artificial consciousness?

Comment Already there (Score 1) 421

We already have superhuman AI. Limited superhumanity. Watson beat the shit out of the jeopardy champions because superhuman reflexes and superhuman searchtime.
Image classification and search algorithm are superhuman in they work rapdily and around the clock even if the result may be so-so.

This trend will become more and more apparent as more fields get in the reach of specialist AI, essentially we're building autistic savant superhumanity. And like autistic savants these will not be much of an malicious existential threat.

By the time we can actually build a universally superhuman AI that could form willful malicious intent we'll be so immersed in AI and so used to build, deal with and monitor AI that it will be a mostly forgotten nonissue.

You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).