Link to Original Source
I just checked my DMARC inbox, Yahoo and Microsoft are sending DMARC reports so that's the big three email providers plus a bunch of smaller providers.
DMARC is definitely being adopted.
Clarke did very little writing on robot brains.
Um, I'll have to assume that you weren't around for April, 1968, when the leading AI in popular culture for a long, long, time was introduced in a Kubrick and Clarke screenplay and what probably should have been attributed as a Clarke and Kubrick novel. And a key element of that screenplay was a priority conflict in the AI.
Well, you've just given up the argument, and have basically agreed that strong AI is impossible
Not at all. Strong AI is not necessary to the argument. It is perfectly possible for an unconscious machine not considered "strong AI" to act upon Asimov's Laws. They're just rules for a program to act upon.
In addition, it is not necessary for Artificial General Intelligence to be conscious.
Mind is a phenomenon of healthy living brain and is seen no where else.
We have a lot to learn of consciousness yet. But what we have learned so far seems to indicate that consciousness is a story that the brain tells itself, and is not particularly related to how the brain actually works. Descartes self-referential attempt aside, it would be difficult for any of us to actually prove that we are conscious.
You're approaching it from an anthropomorphic perspective. It's not necessary for a robot to "understand" abstractions any more than they are required to understand mathematics in order to add two numbers. They just apply rules as programmed.
Today, computers can classify people in moving video and apply rules to their actions such as not to approach them. Tomorrow, those rules will be more complex. That is all.
Agreed that a Robot is no more a colleague than a screwdriver.
I think you're wrong about Asimov, though. It's obvious that to write about theoretical concerns of future technology, the author must proceed without knowing how to actually implement the technology, but may be able to say that it's theoretically possible. There is no shortage of good, predictive science fiction written when we had no idea how to achieve the technology portrayed. For example, Clarke's orbital satellites were steam-powered. Steam is indeed an efficient way to harness solar power if you have a good way to radiate the waste heat, but we ended up using photovoltaic. But Clarke was on solid ground regarding the theoretical possibility of such things.
when you needed to make a critical call
Wait, what? You use your phone to do what? What's a "call?" Is it free in the app store?
I have, twice.
Once when someone thought it would be funny to send a link to one of the sales staff that flooded his screen with porn popups. He called for me, I walked up and yanked the power cord out of the back of his machine figuring that cleaning up after an unclean shutdown was better than having to look at the pictures.
And once when some kiddy porners were using my employer's top list system to evade website shutdowns and I found it completely by accident when browsing the lists..
Didn't take long for me to quit that job which turned out to be a good call considering my boss ended up closing the Montreal office, moving back to Russia and becoming a hard core spammer (in jail now, assuming he is still alive)
Established technology tends to persist in the face of new technology. -- G. Blaauw, one of the designers of System 360