Link to Original Source
Who said mummy and daddy sent me to Northeastern and MIT. I earned a scholarship to Northeastern. I didn't attend M.I.T, i just worked there. I taught myself Pl/1, Adascript, CMS, VM360, for a programming job there. Then I taught myself Multics and Emacs to get the teaching assistant job. And I actually read the manuals.
A professional engineer should be to analyze problems, and at the very least be able to narrow a problem down. If they don't know the answer, they should be able to figure out how to use basic spreadsheet and word processor, or do a little scripting. A professional engineer should be able to figure out network problems, basic computer problems, and be able to do anything someone at the geek squad can do.
Why don't you get your head out of your ass. These "trained engineers" should have a basic understanding of their tools and a modicum of problem solving skills.
Even though dropped out of North Eastern University, I still kept my part time teaching assistant position at MIT.
"One day a PC files" Huh?? Didn't use a PC, I was hired to design and write code on an Apple ][+.
I agree with the original poster. Here, we have someone complaining that a mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, etc. can't write their own simple excel macro, or figure out why they have no internet connection. This is akin to your car not starting and not being able to figure out that it is the battery and being able to jump it or having a flat tire and calling AAA to change it.
When I first dropped out of college, I took a job working for a hardware engineer (Seth) at a very small company. If there was a problem, he'd toss me the chip puller and tell me where the scope was. Years later, at one company, they had moved offices and needed to change the IP addresses of a couple of the Linux based workstations. They were waiting for a consultant to show up the following week. I took 5 minutes to do it.
This is not an issue of every non-software engineer being able to write good quality code. It is an issue of having basic understanding of the tools and being able to simple tasks, like write a macro, or and simple diagnostics? How many of you laugh at people who don't know how to change a tire or jump a dead battery?
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.
VMWare is a GPL violator and got off of its most recent case on a technicality. Any Linux developer can restart the case.
The Linux foundation is sort of like loggers who claim to speak for the trees. Their main task is to facilitate the exploitation of Open Source rather than contribution to it.
Bitcoins aren't really worth anything. There are just some people who have convinced themselves that they are worth something. You can'r really rely on such people continuing their belief.
"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe