Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:AI does what AI is programmed to do (Score 1) 152

Whoosh.

The program, is the machine learning conditional framework. The training is data that influences program execution. The program is what the machine follows, the behavior exhibited by the program is determined by the training data.

The problem, as you correctly put, is that we dont really have good feedback on what elements of the training data it is weighing on reliably.

The actual program is what defines the conditional framework at the lowest level. It does this faithfully. The emergent properties? That's another story. That is related to the data the AI has collected.

Comment Re:That is correct (Score 1) 152

Again, the danger is not "skynet deciding humans are obsolete", the danger is in "For some reason, our predator drones suddenly started mass murdering our own citizens when winter hit, and people started wearing full face balaclavas." -- Because the training they gave the predator drone in the middle east made it select for people wearing full face covering attire, because that was one of the easier metrics to weigh for.

Comment AI does what AI is programmed to do (Score 5, Insightful) 152

It does exactly what it is programmed/trained to do, nothing more, nothing less.

The DANGER of AI, especially when integrated into weapons systems, is that the people pushing for it, dont understand that the risks of the AI deciding a friendly is an enemy because of their wearing the wrong colors, (or, enemies getting free passes for the same) IS VERY REAL.

Similar with putting AI in charge of certain kinds of situations, where its programmed methodologies would result in horrible clusterfucks as it maximizes its strategy.

No, AI in a killbot *IS* very dangerous. Just not in the "Kill all humans(install robot overlord!)" way. Instead it is more the "human does not meet my (programmed impossible) description of friendly, and thus is enemy combatant, Kill the human" way.

Comment Re:Star Trek was a subtle mixture (Score 1) 159

This is true, however, it seems to me that the direction CBS and Paramount want to take the series is "GI-Joe in space, with boobies and lasers!-- Oh, and throw in some really crooked corporations and government officials too! Everyone relates to those!"

They seem to REALLY want to paint a very dystopian view of where humanity will end up, making any upbeat message of the series into a hollow sounding cliche that not even a koolaid drinker could swallow.

That, and not even a token effort at rigorous scifi. (Voyager's babble was better, imo)

Really, there are all kinds of interesting story opportunities that have gone completely to waste in the star trek compendium to date, and most of them dont need phasers or torpedoes.

Take for instance, the mysterious starless void mentioned only in passing in Enterprise, where it is mentioned that a huge subspace anomaly prevented star formation in that area. ("the barrens") What could possibly create a void "100 light years across", and be natural? Especially given that since it did not form stars, there is little matter there, suggesting very unusual and exotic physics? *I* sure as hell would want to find out what caused it-- but nope-- Not cool enough. No explosions, no boobies--- Nevermind that some really neat possibilities, like it being artificial in nature, or the result of subspace aliens performing research on our universe and creating partially interacting spacetime, or any number of potentially very neat directions it could be taken- Nope- 100ly void is just boring and uninteresting. We just needed an excuse for why nobody was there, so we could circlejerk about the transporter.

Star Trek could be VERY interesting, but it gets discarded for really dull plots anymore.

Comment Re:Sounds like wrong approach... (Score 1) 159

Do I really need to approach this?

DS9 plot synopsis:

A guy with PTSD gets given command of a space station in the middle of a war zone, because the federation is stupid, and apparently cant assign duty postings without Q holding their hands.

He is naturally, not very capable, due to his PTSD.

The warzone theme of the series harps really hard on the militaristic side of the federation, (Seeing as we have a revolving badguy trope here, with the Cardassians, then the Jem-Hadar, and then the changelings before finally CBS was merciful and cancelled the series), it is a recurring plot point that the peaceful federation cant be bothered to arm a space station that *HAS* torpedo bays with any torpedos whatsoever, despite even Oberth class science ships having at least 6 standard compliment (You know, that ship that gets one-shot killed in Wrath of Khan? Yeah-- that's an oberth science ship) making this series into a "We REAAAAALLY WANT to make this about wars and battles and stuff, and we really dont like this peaceful federation restriction, so we will make it look cheap, taudry an stupid and throw tantrums until we get our way" type charade--- compared to TNG, where superior badguys do get introduced, but with very strong deliberation by the federation on escalation of conflict, and the focus being not on the explosions and battlefront, but on the ethics of conflict to begin with-- And in many of the conflicts that take place, the federation gets its ass formally handed to it, (Wolf359 for instance) necessitating and illustrating the need for solutions other than violence.

Then you have the "soap opera" bullshit, but that was inherent in the entire franchise. DS9 tried to take it to new levels though. (as did Voyager, but at least it MADE SENSE with voyager.)

But thanks for the bait there AC.

Comment Sounds like wrong approach... (Score 4, Insightful) 159

If this is the same kind of horrid drek as the "reboot" universe (AKA, the Teen angst IN SPAAAACE universe), then again, hollywood DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.

Startrek was a huge success, because it preached a message of a non-militaristic, peaceful, and progressive future.

Look at the reboot movies-- Rigid militarism, politicians lying their fucking asses off and scheming to perform illegal acts, horrible writing to justify explosions-- horrid horrid drek.

The "Need" to "reboot" the series comes from some idiots in a board room feeling that the original message of the series was stilted, and not in line with modern audiences.

Guess what, the ORIGINAL series was considered "Unsuited for modern audiences" back in the 60s too! FOR THE SAME REASONS.

No, idiots in the board room-- it DOES NOT need more boobie time, more teen angst, bad drama, or more explosions. What it needs, is that original formula of "A better future than one ruled by horrible corporations, big money, and authoritarian government *IS* possible, and this is how it can happen".

If you fail to deliver that, you are not delivering star trek.

Comment Re:Two NICs yet? (Score 2) 92

Simply not the same as a PCIe asic. I dont care how much theoretical bandwidth there is on USB3, or that they did away with polled mode. It is not the same if nothing else but because it has to go through two different driver stacks for data to enter and leave the media. The idea here is security consciousness, not simple function. Smaller attack surface is better.

Comment Re:Only in America... (Score 1) 126

Not my definition. It is the definition used in chemistry, AND material science.

No silicon to be found in "metallic glass" for instance.

http://engineering.jhu.edu/mat...

The requirement that it be silica glass to be called "glass" is a fabrication made entirely by yourself. I used the term correctly. A glass is any solid substance lacking an orderly molecular arrangement. That's why metals can be glasses, as noted above.

Comment Re:Only in America... (Score 3, Interesting) 126

As for solar only based sintering (on mars), I still think it is doable, and could be simulated on earth with appropriate feedstocks, and occultation of the Fresnel lens to model the 60% or so reduction of solar intensity.

A Fresnel lens from a big screen rear projection TV produces a focal point suitable for this purpose on earth. (It can melt pure silicon oxide without a flux, which has a vitreous transition temp of 1475k) We would need a significantly larger one on mars, but still within the realm of being sent there rolled up in a shipping tube.

Comment Re:Only in America... (Score 3, Interesting) 126

When I say "glass", it is not necessarily "amorphous silicon dioxide". It is more " amorphous phase metal oxide". It need not be silicon oxide.

"glass" refers to its structure, not composition.

glass thus does not require silicon to be created. an example is oxide glass, made from 90% alumina.

there ARE clay formations and claystone formations on mars, which would produce viable glasses.

Comment Re:Only in America... (Score 3, Interesting) 126

The idea I had in mind is more akin to a high temp version of a cotton candy machine.

A central vessel at the spin axis is under the focal point of a Fresnel lens. A small shaker chute dispenses more dust to this crucible as material is removed. The crucible has two or three small holes through which material may be expelled, and it rotates at several hundred rpm. The mechanical stretching needed for glass fiber comes from the fiber hitting the side of the hopper, while the axis continues to rotate. This should produce a cotton wool like glass fiber, which should be workable into simple construction forms.

Due to the aridity, even water soluble glasses may end up being useful, if nothing else but for creating dust collection filters for atmospheric concentrators.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...