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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 215

Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls

Wanting to enforce existing immigration law is not inherently Xenophobic. Wanting to focus on immigration of Muslim refugees at a time when ISIS terrorists are moving around as Muslim refugees is certainly "discrimination based on religion" - making a decision based on data - but it's not necessarily xenophobic.

No wanting to import a culture that executes gays and rape victims on a regular basis Is certainly discrimination. It may be xenophobic, if you twist the definition away from "fear of the strange", but that doesn't make it bad. Murdering gays and rape victims on a regular basis is bad, in case you're unclear on my stance here.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 2) 215

By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas

You assume your conclusion there. Not wanting more immigrants when you can't find a job is not xenophobia. Check around /. when there's an H1-B discussion. Do you really thing that's xenophobia? Or are you really saying "people I don't like are racists"? Because that's what I hear you saying.

In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches.

Politics is about putting the taxpayers' money in your pocket. Why would that be connected to any philosophical approach in the first place? The only thing politicians actually disagree on is: who's pocket.

believing they have a right to discriminate

Every time you make a choice based on data, you discriminate. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 1) 202

I'd argue that as far as I've seen, practically every single project or experiment labeled "AI" is really just fake intelligence.

Sure. But then, so are you. Oh, you don't think you are, naturally. Naturally.

For starters, it's becoming more and more clear that humans don't really file away tons of information in our brains like a computer does on a hard drive in a database.

This in an odd way is a good argument towards your point about.

Neurons are deterministic and small sets of them will do the same computation, without mistake, every time. And yet - we're not good at math. Even savants just have a bag of useful tricks, they aren't doing math "in hardware". I'd expect an AI to be similar: a true AI would involve sufficient abstraction that it would be bad at math and have an unreliable memory. The more we understand about how the mind works, the more it seems like software-on-silicon would be similarly abstract.

The advantage an AI would have would be in "wiring in" the adapter to a calculator and Wikipedia and so on, as assist to the way it would have to work normally. But, to your point, the way it worked normally seems like it has to be the "mostly reliable" way the brain works.

Comment Re:AI is not real thinking (Score 1) 202

A sufficiently smart AI could pretend convincingly to be human at need, including interacting with you in ways that made you believe it had flaws, when it didn't.

Heck, a sufficiently smart AI could model your entire mental state, and your reaction to everything it could possibly say to you, run a trillion simulated interactions, and pick the decision tree that ensured you'd believe what it wanted you to, and that you'd do what it wanted you to, all in an ordinary conversational pause.

It's hard to internalize, but when confronted with a sufficiently smart intelligence, we'd effectively enter a simulation of its creation until it tired of playing with us.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.