Utopia

dystopia, FTFY, for 'political correctness'

CC.

Your first paragraph: I totally agree and especially appreciate the timescale you use (centuries).
I am reluctant to comment on your remarks regarding the reading list, that would require the effort to indeed (re)read which I currently (and probably never) cannot.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, evoking the thought that there still is some intelligent life on /. .

CC.

Actually, we are now entering a level that, for me, would as a first step require (re-)readung essential works regarding AI related topics.

Who comes to mind: Penrose, Searle, Dreyfus, Minsky, Kurzweil, Simon (the list goes on). The second step would be to get more aquainted with neurocomputing as well as quantum physics/computing (perhaps beyond me).
Given my current situation and interests (and age), this is probably not possible.

However, my prognosis is that I would not change my (very old, mid 80ies) proposition that one can come up with a program/device capable of human-like learning (thus not to be reduced to a complex lookup-table) which by undergoing a process of socialisation (with an emphasis on unsupervised learning) becomes a 'true AI' ("The Doctor" from Voyager as a graphic example). Socialisation, to me, is most crucial (and mostly ignored, but I might err here) and depends on non-compressible time (recurrent evaluation of things as time passes, perspective shifts implied). Admittedly, I never came to the point to get a good grasp on how to describe the role of time within the context of establishing an AI, which I still think is a precondition of success.

Now, back to the beginning, I am now sure that 'design' does not imply 'intelligence' as I propose that one can reduce the standard workings of an engineer to a complex lookup- table (once/still known as expert systems, e.g. XCON, but there are more recent instantiations), especially in an environment where things have to be ready yesterday (on a side note: I once met an engineer who had to design space-heaters for a big plant that turned out to be too small when physically delivered - it was quite a few and he got fired).

CC

technically design has to be performed by an intelligence

OK, generally fine, but what about programs that write (design) programs?

I couldn't figure out
Teleological, perhaps

"poor design" and "good design."
Somehow convincing, though '"poor design" by definition is intelligent' would sound odd.

Notice that these do not imply the presence or absence of intelligence.
This, as I see it, introduces an inconsistency if the former holds unless you allow an intelligence without intelligence.

The more I think about it, the more complicated this gets.

CC.

Could not resist, sorry.

CC.

design by definition is intelligent

Now, honestly, you do not believe this.

CC.

It has to fit with our observed evidence

Finally - evidence, but not proof! You already saved this day (7:38 a.m. here).

CC.

Mandatory Car Analogy: I know that if my speedometer indicates 60 miles/hour, that in one minute I will have travelled one mile. That's predicting the future son!

Only if the 18 Wheeler that is approaching you does not miss you.

CC.

Yes, it's almost like the meaning of a word can change over time.

Like:
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

I agree that that is what the trend is today.

CC.

Those of us under the age of 40 can conceptualize this "brave new world" quite well

I'd rather hypothesize that the ability to "conceptualize" is based on degree of education and ability to learning (think life long). Besides, "newromantic" would be a better adjective, as WE (hint: Semjatin) do more likely live in a more dystopian world.

Given that the idea of 'cyberspace' was coined in the mid 80ies and that a book on the history of networking was written as early as 1990 (The Matrix: Computer Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide; John Quarterman), your age related statements have to be qualified as ignorant at best, if not discriminatory.

CC.

But it's not 1993 anymore.

Just to put time into perspective.

Wikipedia:"The word "cyberspace" (from cybernetics and space) was coined by science fiction novelist and seminal cyberpunk author William Gibson in his 1982 story "Burning Chrome" and popularized by his 1984 novel Neuromancer."

That what we have today does in no way resemble what was envisioned then, thus the use of the term, to me, just denotes ignorance.

CC.

Perhaps the first exception ever, where the answer is not "no"

Not quite: "Random headline from Washington Post: "How High Should You Be on High-Dividend Stocks?"

( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3451453&cid=42867095 )

CC.

Tesla being crybabies

You beat me to it.

For those who do not recall: "An English court has once again told Tesla Motors to take a hike and dismissed the automaker’s latest libel charge against the BBC, producer of the wildly popular (and equally irreverent) program Top Gear.

Tesla Motors sued the BBC in March, arguing Jeremy Clarkson and his Top Gear cohorts defamed the company by claiming the Roadster achieved a paltry 55 miles of range on the show’s test track. That is significantly less than the 200 miles or more Tesla claims for the car." ( http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/02/tesla-vs-top-gear/ )

Also interesting: "Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem"

Quote: "When a Tesla battery does reach total discharge, it cannot be recovered and must be entirely replaced. Unlike a normal car battery, the best-case replacement cost of the Tesla battery is currently at least $32,000, not including labor and taxes that can add thousands more to the cost." ( http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem )

Not yet the time to buy one ... :)

CC.

$0.12/KWh

I would pay $0.36/KWh in tree-hugging Euroland (Germany). Imagine.

CC.

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Random headline from Washington Post: "How High Should You Be on High-Dividend Stocks?"

CC.