Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Somebody is confusing AI with robotics (Score 1) 201

AI may be advancing with giant strides, but robotics is still far, far away from doing anything remotely similar to a Terminator, even the simplest models ;-)

Musk and many others are not thinking that AI is already dangerous. They are thinking about something called the singularity - the point at which AI can improve upon itself, creating a positive feedback loop where AI evolution outpaces our ability to follow, understand - or stop it.

The tipping point is not "when will the first computer achive sentience?" - that is ill defined and it might not ever be sentient in a human sense, but instead in a different way. The tipping point is "when does machine evolution decouple from human understanding?". As some systems already evolve, and some systems already do things in ways we don't understand, that point seems near. And once AI has reached that point, given the massive processing power available, it could advance away from us, and be permanently not just one but two, three, ten, one hundred steps ahead of us. And then if it decides it doesn't need humans anymore, it won't be like in the movies. We won't even understand what happened. It will have watched all those movies and make sure it doesn't make any of the mistakes those movie AIs made.

When the technology is there, maybe you actually can legislate it away, but it won't matter anymore. The only point where you can stop this is before the runaway effect starts.

Comment Re:The sky is falling (Score 1) 201

Even IF we outright banned it, do you think other countries will adhere to the will of the US in such matters ?

There's this thing called "international treaties". Maybe you heard about it? It's how the world got together and agreed that biological weapons are a really stupid and dangerous idea and we'd rather not have them.

Imagine if we had banned Science and Math outright early on in our history because of the potential for what it could be used for.

We would still be living in caves and hunting with spears.

And if we didn't talk about the dangers of some inventions, say, nuclear weapons, we would already be back at living caves and hunting with spears.

Comment Re:Jodie Whittaker (Score 1) 508

lets just hope they don't end up killing the show because as we have seen people are REALLY getting fucking sick of being preached at and if the show becomes nothing but left wing politics and virtue signaling? I don't even see hardcore Dr Who fans wanting to tune in for their weekly dose of Who if it becomes nothing but propaganda.

Thanks for that. It might be the reason I stopped watching, without even realizing why. Yeah, the Doctor became less of a timelord and more of a preacher. That definitely was at least part of the reason for me.

Comment nah, gone already (Score 1) 508

With Capaldi, my interest in Doctor Who somehow plummeted. I can't even say why. I was a big, big fan of Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant. While Matt Smith was ok, I felt he was already a step down from Tennant, and I never warmed to Capaldi.

That's why I would've been outraged had they made The Doctor change gender at the 12th incarnation, but now it's just one more reason not to watch the show anymore.

Why? Because it's forced. It's an obvious deviation from the character development for no reason at all except submission to feminist outcry.

But hey, maybe the next Wonder Woman can be a man? It's not about gender, right? Of course it is about gender. We are human beings. Gender is one if not the first thing we notice about another human being, instinctively. There is nothing that is not about gender. Let's stop pretending that the sky is yellow and pigs fly. Doctor Who is a male character, and that is a part of who he is, just like him having two hearts. Gender is not some random biological detail that you can change like a hat. Any biologist can tell you that its effects on the body go beyond primary and secondary sex organs. Its effect on the mind are less clear, research is ongoing, but nobody with any knowledge on the matter would claim that there are none.

To change the gender of the character is to make him another character. And that's total bullshit in a series named after its character. They could've made a spin-off with a female doctor, a different character, and that would've been completely fine. I probably would've watched it. Or a spin-off based on River Song or Idris or even on Missy.

But hey, let's wait for the Wonder Woman movie starring Orlando Bloom and we'll see what all the people now shouting me down with "gender doesn't matter" will say then. :-)

Comment language can be a bitch... (Score 1) 328

Look, we call it "laws of nature", but they are nothing like the laws that are written into law books. It's just an unfortunate choice of words that causes confusion in some minds that take things too literal.

But have fun compensating for that silly law of gravity with a new  in your countries law books...

Comment Re:The real story: fake users. (Score 1) 78

You'd think so, but that is a very classic piece of selective perception. Since we almost always (unless we are involved) see only the affairs that come to light, we assume that most if not all affairs do, eventually.

But what is your guess about the number of affairs that nobody except those involved ever finds out about? You seriously think that is a low number? Got any evidence for that except wishful thinking?

Comment Multics (Score 4, Interesting) 94

The original submission points out that "This revival of Multics allows hobbyists, researchers and students the chance to experience first hand the system that inspired UNIX."

More importantly: To take some of the things that Multics did better and port them to Unix-like systems. Much of the secure system design, for example, was dumped from early Unix systems and was then later glued back on in pieces.

Comment Jobs, jobs, jobs - the biggest strawman ever (Score 1) 238

What we still haven't figured out is how to run a society that doesn't put your job as the central element of your life.

That goes beyond economy. Yes, economically we haven't figured out how to run Utopia. For all of history humans have dreamed about a life where you don't have to work, and all essentials, like food and water, sorry, honey and milk, get provided to you. Now we are closer than ever to that dream, and we have no idea what to do with it.

But also from a social and identity perspective. We still identify people with their jobs. Like that is the one thing you need to know about them. Heck, people identify themselves with their job, and sudden unemployment is psychologically dangerous because of that.

So far, the solution has been to find new jobs. Ok, machines put people out of jobs, lets make them machine maintenance people instead. Ok, computers automate desk jobs, lets make them programmers instead. I'm sure someone will make the people automated away with AI into AI teachers or something. Not enough people are thinking laterally.

Maybe we don't need jobs for a working society, maybe we don't need jobs to understand who we are? Maybe this whole "omg it will put people out of jobs" is a big strawman? And so what if it does?

The whole panic distracts us from the main question: Who should profit from the automation? So far, the profits are unevenly distributed. We already know that most people don't think the level of inequality is ok. Most of us are fine with some inequality, but not with the "1000 times your income" level of inequality we face today. If the CEO is a smart guy, it's fine that he makes in a month what I make in a year. But today, in some big corporations, the CEO makes in a month what the low-earners will make in their entire working life.

It's time that we have a serious discussion about who gets the profits generated by the robot that replaces you. Right now, that profit goes to everyone, except you. But why? Because we are still thinking about the economy the way that we did 100,1000 or 10,000 years ago. That labor somehow matters. But in world where labor is done by robots, it doesn't.

Comment connections (Score 2) 182

Some speculate that Kaspersky, [...] kept his Soviet-era intelligence connections.

No shit. Of course he did, you have to be a total idiot not to have connections to the intelligence sphere of the country you are operating in if you own a company in the security industry.

The question should not be if he has connections. That's a given. You think McAfee has no such connections? The question is if they affect the product he is selling in a technically meaningful way. That he keeps such connections for the purpose of sales is clear.

But hey, digging deeper than a sensationalist quote has fallen out of fashion, hasn't it?

Comment Re:This is the absolute best effect of Trump elect (Score 2) 111

How much of the Cold War do you think was created by people believing and/or wanting to have a Cold War?

McCarthy certainly caused many of the things he was afraid of to happen. For example, communists within the USA went underground due to his prosecutions. Before him, communism was simply another political option, like the Green party is today.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The sixties were good to you, weren't they?" -- George Carlin