Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Paid Trolls? (Score 3, Interesting) 294 294

Paul Ehrlich is a famous doomspeaker known for his predictions of imminent doom and gloom.

He's not famous for being right though.

He may not believe in the easter bunny but he certainly believes in The Great Demise despite its consistent failure to materialize in any shape or form.

Comment: Re:Already there (Score 1) 421 421

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) 421 421

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.

Comment: Re:Deniers (Score 1) 525 525

It's not a well kept secret. Do a google image search for: ipcc models wrong ; and enjoy the countless graphs that shows the model gap in a idiot proof manner.

People take great offense though because they'd rather (ironically) call you a denier than accept what's in front of their eyes.

The satellite record is even more entertaining. Drop a note saying "18 years of pause" in a pro-agw conference and there will be total upheaval as half of them denies that there is any pause at all as they haven't got the latest PM and the other half blames hidden heat(?) and natural variability.

Any programming language is at its best before it is implemented and used.

Working...