When you are calculating the daily cost of a phone, you are doing it wrong.
Maybe I am. Please explain.
The plodders go down with the ship.
Often with otherwise underserved promotions due to the vacuum above caused by the departures.
wouldn't that let the cat out of . .
>Lena Dunham or Amy Shumer, mostly because I dislike their material.
wait a minute, "their"?
Are you saying that she is, er they are, not the same person?
Tivo is still around.
Well, sort of.
I switched from Directv to the hated cable company to get back to a tivo (a romio). Turns out that the interface just isn't, well, what we liked tivo for.
Rather than clicking on record in the listings, it's something like three. And for a season pass, rather than clicking record twice, it's several. Because, gosh, they've got to make buying it to watch the default first choice, don't they?
Can't screen for series premiere any more either.
Now, it's just a slightly better DVR
Phones with gigabytes of data on them are okay, but I won't really believe it's the future until talking rings become popular. (Preferably long play talking rings, though)
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.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll