The 3 laws of robotics are paramount when considering the definition of an AI that understands the world. Without this logic layer, an artificial intelligence will not have the capacity or logic to meaningfully cooperate with the "world" it is subjected to.

An AI must not have the ability to injure a human, or humanity. This is the fundamental building block of an ethical AI. An AI will not be able to understand who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. It must put all humans on an equal playing field, and it must put only humanity as the only thing above that in the hierarchy of importance. If an AI is to come into existence, the only responsible way to do it is my limiting its ability to harm. Something that has the ability to learn, grow, and affect the world must not have the ability to do harm. Since this thing will essentially have super powers, it must only use those power to help, not hinder. Humanity must be ready to accept its anti-weapon state before an AI can truly exist. Any AI without this ability is either not an AI or is so irresponsible it can only result in one side of the equation being destroyed. Remember, an AI is a fundamentally different life form. An "AI" that predicts shopping habits is not an AI, it is a new blip, a clever algorithm that increases a company's stock price.

The AI must be able to understand natural language and process it into a function. The AI must be able to logically discern who is and is not a human. The AI must have a fail-safe that is either this or like this. A true AI has the ability to learn and (assuming) the ability to connect with and communicate with computers. An internet connected AI would then be a tremendous gateway to disaster if the proper decision making ability is not truncated. We see how humans use their powers of intelligence and cognition to make evil things happen, the AI must not have this ability.

This means the AI must be self-aware and place value in its existence. I don't know how a human can make this in programming, but this in and of itself would be a significant accomplishment. I do not believe any current AI endeavors are even pursuing this fundamental cornerstone of intelligence, but would like to see examples of it if it exists.

sounds like a great way to make people quit their jobs.

a gig is not a job. This percentage is incredibly wrong.

Not the big tech responsibility to police hate speech. More easy to flag it and display the address/phone numbers of haters, or better yet, just delete facebook source code. Last one probably the best / most humane option.

Satan died bro. We all pray to Cthulhu now.
“That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.”

There's an app for that!

call ending scripts are disposition statements, like "we'll schedule a technician" or "we'll send someone to inspect the lines" or "trouble ticket to actual ISP for IP reassignment/modem reset" or "transfer to xx/yy department"

You're not talking to your ISP you're taking to an outsourced staffer who is paid to answer the phone. Your ISP would prefer you didn't call. They don't have access to the customer database or the IP/Modem tracking system. They have a GUI with like 5 options, 1 of which is "escalate" the other 4 lead them to call ending scripts.

This, and the originating service or product likely has "scripts" for the outsourced individual to read. This type of thing is fucking awful for call centers. Scripts don't solve problem, they create more problems due to pissing both the caller and the call-center-staffer off. "customer service" is just that - performing a service. Whether or not the call center staff member says please and thank you, pretty sure nobody gives a fuck. They're not calling for someone to be nice to them they're calling for a real reason - to conduct business perhaps, or to solve a problem they're having. Sure being nice is an added extra bonus, but you know what? It is totally not necessary. Perhaps the nicest thing would be to: 1.) be very brief, yet as transparent as possible under constraint of brevity; 2.) never ask open-ended questions like "is there anything else I can help you with?" - the customer called for the reasons they already mentioned. stick to that. 3.) Launch your required business processes instantly. I don't give a fuck about the problem statement if you're not going to listen and then ask for my XX number or my YY username or some shit. Ask up front, guide the caller through the process, don't let them control the conversation; and 4.) don't apologize that's so fucking annoying and we know you don't care/mean it. Empathy Otter understands us and knows exactly how we feel, you the call center staffer should realize that we're not actually communicating with you and you don't have to care about us. You just have to do the job you were put there for, quickly, quietly, efficiently. Explain your actions before you take them, then take them, then explain the results. No cheery "smile while you talk" no needless empathy statements - wasting my time and your breath. Perhaps the best call center I talk to is the *gasp* state run health benefits exchange. No IVR menus, no robots to talk to, just you call and they answer.

Really, they "...weren't paying their taxes" and were about to be "disappeared" so they got the fuck out. https://www.independent.co.uk/...

It seems like scarcity is invented for the purposes of pushing an agenda.

Subject says it all. Can't figure out why. I can grasp a moral reason for a non-neutral internet service - say for instance in the event of an emergency - firefighters / emergency personnel get prioritized traffic over us plebes. What I cannot grasp is a reason for throttling anyone based on a seemingly arbitrary corporate policy rule. I get that bandwidth might cost a little money, but these costs are 99.999999% of the time passed on to the consumer anyways, so what's the big fucking deal? I very seriously doubt any major ISP has a 'lack of bandwidth' issue.

Where's the opt out button? Can't find it!

This is a profoundly limiting argument. There are tons of people in the USA. There are some jobs that do not require skills and professionalism - they require packing boxes with the shit you buy. Your argument seems to suggest these people do not deserve a wage above the poverty line. Regardless of the level of skills or professionalism that are required for a specific job, that specific job still needs doing. The person that does it deserves to be fairly compensated - fair meaning they can afford food, shelter and the occasional visit with a nurse. Keep in mind - wage minimums are not congruent nationwide. The Bezos' of the world know this, so they open up warehouses in areas were $7.15 an hour is "acceptable" .... [sigh]

are you talking about the POMO generator? http://www.elsewhere.org/journ...