Link to Original Source
to lay the reasoning on "fake news" sounds stupid.
...but yeah, even with that, $250,000 will still buy you a nice house in the Austin area. Good look finding anything like that anywhere near Silicon Valley...
Just one of the many, many advantages Texas has over California.
...does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Eight. One to change the bulb, and seven to talk about how much better the light bulbs were at the Armadillo World Headquarters...
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.
If you read the IPCC summary, it labels every prediction with how confident the IPCC is in it, so it sure isn't climate scientists.
You are, of course, assuming there's nothing political going on with the IPCC recommendations in the first place and all the conclusions are honestly driven by nothing more than altruistic desires for the betterment of the human race. Pardon me if I have slightly more skepticism about the UN's motives given their manifestly anti-Western, anti-capitalist, pro-globalist stance. Add to that the prevailing "I don't need to explain it to you because you're too stupid to understand" mantra and what seems "settled science" to you seems anything but for those of us who are actually have to sacrifice for whatever the UN IPCC decides we have to do to satisfy them.
I'm assuming nothing. I'm saying I've not seen any major studies whatsoever addressing the actual impact of the subject beyond "climate change BAD!' Climate has changed since the planet first developed an atmosphere to have climate. It will continue to change at its whim until we develop technology capable of utterly controlling it at our whim. Mankind has always adapted. We will adapt to this. The questions that remain are (a) are we capable of affecting the climate in any meaningful way in the first place and (b) is the cost of attempting to pin the climate to the 20th-century norm higher, lower, or equal to the cost of adapting? If the answer to (a) is "no" then it necessarily negates the second question since our only practical option is adaptation.
"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert G. Ingersoll