Link to Original Source
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.
It already began back in 1979, humans getting killed by robots is nothing new.
Yes it does.
Well, yeah, without sound and with one 1fps or less. Meanwhile Steam can pump a game at 1080p@60 over the network without much problem, sound included.
Even ignoring the slowness when it comes to fast moving content. It's missing a lot of fundamental features, such as the ability to move apps between devices or screen sharing. You have to stop an app and restart it to move to another device. That you have to pipe the protocol through SSH if you want a bit of security also makes it more complicated to use than it's needs to be.
Unix is build with a one-system:many-users mindset. That was a great idea 30 years ago. Today's reality however is the other way around many-systems:single-user, everybody has a tablet, a smartphone and a PC, sometimes multiple of each. Unix provides nothing to deal with that. You can try to export your home directory via NFS, but that falls apart the moment you have the same app running on two different computer and both want to access the same file. Some programs solve the problem at the application level, i.e. bookmark syncing in Chrome, but that doesn't scale to the rest of the system.
Once upon a time X11's network transparency was its claim to fame and it did provide a bit of a solution to the many-systems:single-user problem. But today it's close to useless. Ever tried to stream a video over X11's network connection? Doesn't work. The protocol just can't deal with today's workloads. Proprietary alternatives exist that can handle this much better.
In terms of security the whole idea of giving every app that a user runs access to everything that the user can access is also foolish. But at least there is a bit of hope in fixing that. Android solves that by running each app under a different user. Ubuntu tries to solve that by sandboxing. It's all still far away from being the default way you run apps on a desktop Linux, but at least people have recognized the problem.
The big issue I have with HTML is that it's useless for publishing larger content, like books or even just multi-page articles. Thanks to hyper links it is of course possible to add some Next/Prev buttons to a webpage to represent such content, but those links are just hacks, not markup. eReader have developed their own formats (.ePub,
HTML had <link rel="next/prev"...> markup going back to HTML2.0, but it was never properly supported by any browser or developed into something that would be powerful enough to replace
The other elephant in the room are of course the hyper links. The Web still lacks any kind of content-addressability, it's all location based, thus when server go down or it's URL layout changes, all your hyperlinks break. Basic tasks like linking to a specific paragraph from another article are also not possible with HTML. Project Xanadu never got much traction, but it's really time for the Web to learn a thing or two from what they tried to accomplish back then.
Eventually you can get Linux to boot on UEFI just fine. But it is harder than before.
It used to be that you could just put a DVD in a computer and click OK to install Linux, and that was it.
Now people people ask me for help when Linux installation fails. Usually the installation seem to succeed, but the computer cannot boot. I usually install Boot-Repair on a live USB disk, boot the computer and fix it. Boot-Repair is a nice toot but really, it should not be necessary.
And sometimes it does not work. Early versions of the Intel NUC would fail starting Ubuntu because if expected the executable to be named uefi.exe, not grub.exe. Intel fixed it in a later firmware version. But it is telling that they created something so complex, that not even Intel could get it right.
Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger