Exactly. This is the conversation that is relevant. Scientists repeating their finding like a broken record only reinforces the notion that what they say has little effect. Anyone even talking about the science at this point is offtopic.
The issue here is the science of money and of politics, and the true scientists of these fields wear suits and work as executives, as lobbyists, and as congressmen. And they're rich because they know what they're doing. Al Gore was our greatest weapon, but even with an Oscar winning documentary and all that exposure, he didn't do enough in Washington. He couldn't. He showed that Washington cannot be educating. It can only be bought.
By saying the models are out of range, you have already admitted the models are correct, just out of range.
Scientists have no incentive to be wrong or inaccurate, and given evidence, they will incorporate it into whatever it is they are working on. If you're holding on to evidence no one has, please share it. If you're repeating what you read somewhere, well, then we've all heard it before.
> Try arguing about evidence rather than your feelings.
Nothing I said was emotional, but if it moved you, then maybe your exposed buttons got pressed.
Tell me, are you a scientist?
I never suggested nature was a person. I merely suggested it has a voice. Take any analogy far enough and they will always break. That's why they're called analogies.
Society is not governed by science. We've made it to democracy and capitalism in which vote count and bank account reign supreme. And in our society, science is still poor and a minority. The truth does not ultimately win in a democracy. "It's about votes, not truth, dumb ass." And it's easier to buy votes than to inspire them with education.
Scientists completely underestimate the opposition. And the worst part is, the science doesn't even matter. It matters to scientists of course, but it doesn't matter to the deniers. They are on a mission to make money and serve their cause. And all they really need is to buy time. That is all they want. As long as they can postpone action, the more money they make. So even if they believed in the inevitability of scientific conclusion and of actual global warming, they aren't even concerned about those outcomes until they happen. All they have in mind is immediate gratification. So they've already won, and they keep winning. The battle scientists are fighting over "minds" is moot. There are no minds to find. They need to fight the money.
True scientists only echo the voice of nature. Today, nature is our slave. And nature has no voice. Global warming is inevitable. It's nature's revenge. I'd invest in a post warm economy than any attempts in saving it. Science will never have enough money to win the war on global warming.
Get rid of the stocks of companies that decide to bank on research. Research makes a company cool, not profitable. It's where they gamble, for those who can afford it, but not where they succeed.
So either the robot was stuck in a moral dilemma and was regretting its failures, or the guy who built the thing has no idea what he's doing. I wonder which is more probable? Well, he admits it, so it's obvious.
Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, "my answer is: I have no idea".
But I will give the Mr. Winfield the benefit of the doubt and assert partial blame on the journalist who sensationalized the story and his research. The truth here is so boring, it would have never made it to press.
Right. Because good hunches are the fundamentally sound foundations of modern science
They're sounder than the original circular assertion that scientific knowledge is unknowable until you know it.
There are no degrees in soundness here. Hunches are not scientific, period. And "unknown until you know" is not circular reasoning. It's a tautology, not reasoning. Unknown == State before you know. There is nothing circular. It's two ways of saying the same thing.
But they are only permitted to venture into where the light somewhat shines already.
Nobody forces them to use other peoples' money with other peoples' strings attached. A huge part of the problem here is that the people getting the funding aren't actually the exhilarating risk takers you make them out to be.
They need money, but have no money, hence they have no choice if they want to do science. That's what this whole topic is about. Money is only given to those who play it safe or those that lie. And if they didn't have to play it safe, more would be willing to take greater chances. And if they didn't have to lie, there wouldn't be less fake science.
They promised blood pressure medication and got a boner pill. That is science. The evidence backs the statement that science is unpredictable. If we could predict science, we could predict the future. We can do neither. But that is precisely why science is so exciting. The hunch is exhilarating and it's worth enough to pursue it even at great risk. The original article here is talking precisely why those risks are becoming harder to accept, and how we have systematically discouraged courageous science. I'm not referring to crackpots. Real scientists who know what they're doing want to go on long journeys into the unknown. But they are only permitted to venture into where the light somewhat shines already. The personal and scientific rewards here are mediocre. You only get the occasional wow when you find your pill just cured ED.
You can create programs that write rules or code or draw or make music. You can create them so their output is random or unpredictable or based on something other than explicit programmer or use input. Set the input to data and you can call it Machine Learning. Big whoop.
But how this is done must still be explicitly defined and coded. That is what is meant by "go an abstraction layer higher". You can create code that writes code, but that isn't a breakthrough, and that isn't where the breakthrough will lie.
If we fully understood the nature of general intelligence, we would be able to code it, or at least know why we can't. And if we do code it, anyone could read that code and understand the nature of general intelligence.
If someone finds a way to randomly generate code and test it until the produced code is general intelligence, then wow, that'd be amazing. But given the code, it will tell us the answer. Just because our bodies are the product of evolution it doesn't mean we can't understand it. We understand how our eyes work, our ears work, etc... We have yet to understand how our brain works, or how intelligence works. But only armed with understanding, would we be able to engineer it intentionally. And if armed with understanding, we would be able to engineer it intentionally.
Like Siri, it can’t do anything that coders haven’t explicitly programmed it to do. Viv breaks through those constraints by generating its own code on the fly, no programmers required.
This is so misleading. No program can do anything outside what it is explicitly programmed to do. Viv is programmed to generate code only because it has been explicitly programmed to do so, and can only do so as explicitly laid out in its code. Sure, the code may go an abstraction layer higher, but the constraints these programs can't break through is the same. No one knows how to program general intelligence.
the game being stuck in past
Creativity isn't about following the latest and greatest trends, or throwing your resources at a project. Yet with large Japanese bureaucracies, approval requires precedence, and innovation turns into copying. This is a general trend with any large bureaucracy, but it is especially severe in Japan, where they make it a formality. Proof that it is a formality is in this speech. Even given failure, they attribute the cause to not copying the latest trends well enough. That is why game companies should never merge.
If you thought your game was stuck in the past, think again. Maybe YOU ARE.
And given that, your games will NEVER RULE AGAIN.
> by leaving your comfort zone.
How is socializing with other members of your faith leaving your comfort zone? Church IS your comfort zone. So is the marketplace where you gather with FRIENDS.
>The real anomaly is in the walls that keep us from knowing each other.
Like the one that surrounds facebook, and the walls within facebook that prevent certain interactions between its members.