Petroleum is an excellent fuel for transportation and distilling into various fuels, PLUS an excellent source of long-chain carbon for plastics.
To keep that scale in perspective: 1000 years ago we were in a dark age with comparatively ignorant civilizations. 1000 years from now, today will look similar.
To me the crux comes down to the experiential history any consciousness has as a reference in a conversation. If you remove any one of our senses from a person, and then try to have a conversation in text, there are noticeable differences. For a chatbot, remove all senses but some strange "can see text in an otherwise silent dark experience" and a chatbot is at a severe handicap to participate. Contextual clues aren't just the decorative influence to meaningful dialog, they're the essence of it.
So until we get a "bot" that can use some form of vision, hearing and touch - and possibly smell/taste - to fills its "memory" with massive associations that we humans use - it'll never do much. We're left with a machine guessing at the layers of meanings involved and following massive piles of rules to mimic the text of real communication. It cannot easily make the jumps across semantic concepts of jokes like "How does a fish smell? With it's nose, dummy!" or phrases as simple as "See what I mean?" or "I heard you were taking a vacation" or "Check out this vid, it touches on the finer point about AI" or "Over here, the weather is great" - the list is endless, and subtly woven into all conversations.
Interestingly, a machine that could use input like our own senses wouldn't need to be limited to just those 5. It could have broader-bandwidth input for light, sound, and get into perceiving radio-waves, echolocation, etc. Of course, it would have to talk to us in "human context" so it understood time-related phrase like "a little while" was based on human perception, the locale, etc. Also, we may have to get used to a single bot that has multiple physical presences, such that it "lived" (had sensory input from) in several locations across the globe experiencing things, but knew to focus on our location when chatting with us.
What some have proposed is a precursor to such a machine, by using machine-aided design to build the bot. So for example if a computer could design the optimal "drivers" for stereoscopic vision (layers of them - for color, contrast, movement, etc) through iterative evolutionary means (where multiple designs for, say, contrast, competed with a fitness test) - we might get a machine accepting input from devices and storing/searching it more effectively. Right now, we throw a lot of guesses around and just employ massive processing power. Of course, this iterative design would need to be built into the bot permanently, so that it kept improving without so much tinkering.
You had to go an bring dualism into the discussion. Aren't all of you rushing things?
Thanks for responding to at least my comment, given the flood. I'm unsure how you classify "drug users" but you're correct that freedom to filter/employ/associate with those you prefer is good, and even necessary. At the edge are legal bounds for prejudice but I accept you're not speaking of this. You describe a twice-annual full-company random drug test for Scheduled drugs - seems fine by me. Each shop has quite a few cultural hallmarks (many en in burnout, unfortunately). As an American male, I've worked with many H1B's and other non-native folks, and don't really concern myself with country of origin. I can understand the motivation to scare up a perceved shortage, as so companies can pay lower labor rates. The eventuality seems to be that pay rates may receive downward pressure, but other influences like cost-of-living, location, turnover, business-knowledge, etc push labor rates around as well. So its just obe of many influences.
I'm late to this discussion, but I feel compelled to add: This policy you hold is indeed a fine, legal and perhaps prudent choice. I think what you're noticing is exactly what the article states: The general population's perception of the risks of abuse [from cannabis] are too low to care about as in the past. Given the past failures for policy enforcement similar to how you run your shop, the comments' sentiment here is clear: There are simply too many addictions and abuses that are not covered by tests to worry so much about cannabis any more. The professions you mark actually suffer from exceptional abuse (machine operators, surgeons) - many times due to the stresses of retaining successful position itself. There also seems to renewed focus on empathy for those actually suffering from addiction, as it is arising up in the most personal of places.
I doubt anyone sways any opinions on the internet - so this discussion crystallizes best as the Q2 2016 marker of the various viewpoints still bickering about pot and the workplace. I commend your patience to explain your view even as I see the general tide ebbing towards legalization and eventually, removal from the banned substance list.
Better yet, if a semantic derivative of any web page is built by these powerful web crawlers, building a channel for pushing a link to it back the original web site would mean each crawler wouldn't need to start from scratch. Instead they could annotate and extend the semantic information, serve it from multiple locations, while the original site stayed larger out of the process, save for serving the link(s) or be amenable to a filtering proxy that decorates pages with the links.
Reduced down, there would be a machine-friendly semantic version of the web that browsers plugin could tap to annotate the existing human-web, and the crawlers were constantly polishing this semantic version behind the scenes (with curated fixups). The infrastructure of the current web wouldn't need to change, but the experience of the browsing user would be greatly enhanced, largely raising the signal-to-noise ratio on "related" links.
the only winner is another state.
The issue of tracking entities that quote your resource is not really the size of a problem that demands this much answer.
IIRC, the original design included a large number of other features that became nonsensical as modern conventions for information arrived:
- We do not require licensing or micropayment for quoting text or speech. The www follows free-speech by default, and tools must be built on top to restrict things. (Among many reasons why not: There is no permanent trust-able entity for enforcement)
- There is a vastly larger usage of linking than quote usage (links jump but also embed)
- Commercial licensing of text, images and video is still required but the infrastructure to enforce it has to constantly differentiate by usage and intent (satire, education), not mere presence or absence. (YouTube's big review process...)
- There is no permanent barrier to building a free side-channel for information that would otherwise be licensed. (P2P File Sharing, etc)
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.