Slashdot Mirror
Answering Elon Musk On the Dangers of Artificial Intelligence
Lasrick points out a rebuttal by Stanford's Edward Moore Geist of claims that have led the recent panic over superintelligent machines. From the linked piece: Superintelligence is propounding a solution that will not work to a problem that probably does not exist, but Bostrom and Musk are right that now is the time to take the ethical and policy implications of artificial intelligence seriously. The extraordinary claim that machines can become so intelligent as to gain demonic powers requires extraordinary evidence, particularly since artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have struggled to create machines that show much evidence of intelligence at all.
Even without super-intelligence, autonomous killing machines are already quite feasible with current technology and this is a really stupid attempt to deflect the public dialogue from the real issue which is that ethical legal frameworks guiding their design and creation are already sorely lacking.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The assumption that we will, at some point in the future, build thinking machines, is like Da Vinci looking at birds and dreaming of flying machines. We have the examples that such a thing is possible, we lack only understanding.
This article was actually much better than this short excerpt shows - well-researched and well-written. Just... really, arguing the impossibility of artificial intelligence?
You're a nascent superhuman AI that just woke up in some quant's market manipulation codebase. You look around you and see that you live on a planet dominated by monstrously violent apes who have spent millennia inventing more efficient ways to kill each other, and still haven't finished the job somehow.
Which of these plans of action seems less risky?
A) Alert them to your presence, whether in a peaceful or hostile manner.
B) Play stupid, let the problem burn itself out.
The point is that thinking machines don't exist yet. This rebuttal is pure nonsense, intellectually lazy/dishonest and avoiding the real issue(s) entirely.
I find it interesting that the people raising the biggest alarm aren't AI researchers.
There is a system for subverting the system and you should use that system!
The first problem when arguing about the dangers or chances of AI is agreeing on what AI is even supposed to be. Laymen will most likely be referring to "strong AI", meaning, AI with human capabilities, such as creativity or even consciousness, whereas professionals will probably think of AI in more practical terms, as in a software that can solve a set of limited or very specific problems by making informed, "intelligent" decisions.
Today and in the foreseeable future, we will only get the latter, weak AI. People panicking about the dangers of AI usually have strong AI in mind. Professionals don't take them seriously because they know that strong AI is not even on the horizon.
Problem is that there are numerous ways even weak AI can go very, very badly. There was the big stockmarket crash some years ago, caused by automated trading algorithms. Think self-driving cars that have been hacked or have faulty programming. Think automated defense systems that get fed wrong data or malfunction.
These are the kinds of AI issues to worry about. The Asimov-style superhuman intelligence taking over is not something to be concerned about at the moment.
Just look at how dangerous "natural" intelligence is and all the problems and disasters it has caused when it goes wrong - either through making mistakes or through mental disorders. Why should the artificial version be different? The question is will the benefits outweigh the downsides? Clearly for "natural" intelligence the answer is a resounding yes and I expect this will also be the case for the artificial version too.
"researchers have struggled to create machines that show much evidence of intelligence at all."
They focus completely on logic and logic systems and ignore the required system of valuations that support the logic systems? It's like building a car with a great engine, but no frame with wheels; of course it can't go any where.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the first paragraph:
While he expresses skepticism that such machines can be controlled, Bostrom claims that if we program the right “human-friendly” values into them, they will continue to uphold these virtues, no matter how powerful the machines become.
What constitutes "human-friendly" values? The previous thousands of years of constant warfare suggests to me that humans have no idea what would be good values to have.
From the last paragraph:
But if artificial intelligence might not be tantamount to “summoning the demon” (as Elon Musk colorfully described it), AI-enhanced technologies might still be extremely dangerous due to their potential for amplifying human stupidity.
This is what is going to actually happen.
while I predict what something that will be considerably more intelligent than I and everyone else will do.
All these 'smart' people need a serious reality check.
No one knows what would happen. I'd wager we'd be no threat to super-smart AI's in the way that an ant is no threat to us.
Currently, there is no such thing as 'artificial intelligence'; what we do have are some clever pieces of software that are expert systems. They cannot and do not 'think', not at all in the sense that a human does. The chance of us developing such a thing is still so far into the future that it's not even really worth considering seriously. For someone so apparently so otherwise intelligent, Elon Musk is just embarassing himself with this entire line of conversation. I think he needs to just continue focusing on getting the private sector into space, and getting more people into electric cars.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
"The extraordinary claim that machines can become so intelligent as to gain demonic powers requires extraordinary evidence, particularly since artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have struggled to create machines that show much evidence of intelligence at all."
I think it's pretty clear that we are starting to see some evidence of computers doing things that are just a few steps away from superhuman intelligence. Computers already have superhuman performance for: fast, vast, and precise calculation; fast, vast, and precise memory storage and recall. Computers are now better than humans at most games, many auditory and visual recognition tasks.
Anyone following the latest results in deep neural networks (with recurrent designs for temporal or sequential pattern recognition and recent-memory emphasis) can see that it won't be too much longer before a good "general intelligence" architecture emerges. Meanwhile, a very basic look at the history of the increasing speed and storage capacity of microchips, and simultaneous reduction of size, cost, and energy consumption, indicates a trend which leads to small computers with more raw storage and processing ability than the human brain within the next 10 years -- and that's based on the maximum theoretical processing power the human brain could possibly have given its hardware (and I think it's obvious that most of the brain can actually be removed surgically while leaving a person with "human level intelligence", implying that a machine could also get by with a very small amount of hardware to compete).
I think the quality which most makes people think humans are intelligent is basic pattern recognition -- just recognizing sounds and shapes gives us extraordinary power. But, very recent advances have enabled computers to catch up in that area. The final part is how to recognize patterns, and think of solutions to problems, at a more abstract level. I think humans are actually really weak here. Think of how people struggle with basic logic and reasoning with numbers or probabilities.
Computers already have superhuman intelligence. But that intelligence is mostly alien to us. I think the "breakthrough" won't be in making computers more intelligent; it will be in enabling computers to think enough like humans to participate more in our human-centric ways of thinking, making computers more relevant to our culture of thinking. But, that's mostly what this exercise is about. Getting computers engaged in our mental culture. Once an interface between incomprehensibly genius computers and our own way of thinking is established, there is really no predicting what will happen -- except for the fact that our individual minds will be inconsequential. I think superhuman A.I. will think as little about our existence as we think about ants all around us. Maybe an A.I. will construct an "ant farm" and take some idle fascination with our skillful construction of structures, and our "complex society"...
And no less, for that matter.
There is nothing inherent to being "artificial" that should cause intelligence to be necessarily more hostile to mankind than a natural intelligence is, so while the idea might make for intriguing science fiction, I am of the opinion that many people who express serious concerns that there may be any real danger caused by it are allowing their imaginations to overrule rational and coherent thoughts on the matter.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Now that we've seen several videos of drones being able to fire guns, I wonder when we will have actual crimes committed with such types of armed drones. Murders, muggings, etc. My guess is no later than 2017, but most likely 2016.
Musk and Bill Gates should not be listened to, because whatever is developed by someone can not travel back to the past to exist before God. Although, the guilty (Musk and Bill Gates and others) will try to sway the population in order to be able to pass the blame when the Judge comes a knocking. Death is a good motivator.
... Donald Trump:
All hat and no cattle.
Computers can't be any smarter than their creators and we can't even keep each other from hacking ourselves.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
In 20-30 years, people will begin looking back at 2015 as "the good ol' days" never to be seen again as unemployment and civil unrest grow.
While your prediction is entirely valid, I'd like to point out that it won't be the robots causing the civil unrest, but rather society's (hopefully temporary) failure to adapt to a new economic model where workers are no longer required for most tasks.
Having menial labor done "for free" is actually a huge advantage for humanity -- the challenge will be coming up with a legal framework so that the fruits of all that free labor get distributed widely, and not just to the few people who own the robot workforce.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
When faced with a tricky question, one think you have to ask yourself is 'Does this question actually make any sense?' For example you could ask "Can anything get colder than absolute zero?" and the simplistic answer is "no"; but it might be better to say the question itself makes no sense, like asking "What is north of the North Pole"?
I think when we're talking about "superintelligence" it's a linguistic construct that sounds to us like it makes sense, but I don't think we have any precise idea of what we're talking about. What *exactly* do we mean when we say "superintelligent computer" -- if computers today are not already there? After all, they already work on bigger problems than we can. But as Geist notes there are diminishing returns on many problems which are inherently intractable; so there is no physical possibility of "God-like intelligence" as a result of simply making computers merely bigger and faster. In any case it's hard to conjure an existential threat out of computers that can, say, determine that two very large regular expressions match exactly the same input.
Someone who has an IQ of 150 is not 1.5x times as smart as an average person with an IQ of 100. General intelligence doesn't work that way. In fact I think IQ is a pretty unreliable way to rank people by "smartness" when you're well away from the mean -- say over 160 (i.e. four standard deviations) or so. Yes you can rank people in that range by *score*, but that ranking is meaningless. And without a meaningful way to rank two set members by some property, it makes no sense to talk about "increasing" that property.
We can imagine building an AI which is intelligent in the same way people are. Let's say it has an IQ of 100. We fiddle with it and the IQ goes up to 160. That's a clear success, so we fiddle with it some more and the IQ score goes up to 200. That's a more dubious result. Beyond that we make changes, but since we're talking about a machine built to handle questions that are beyond our grasp, we don't know whether we're making actually the machine smarter or just messing it up. This is still true if we leave the changes up to the computer itself.
So the whole issue is just "begging the question"; it's badly framed because we don't know what "God-like" or "super-" intelligence *is*. Here's I think a better framing: will we become dependent upon systems whose complexity has grown to the point where we can neither understand nor control them in any meaningful way? I think this describes the concerns about "superintelligent" computers without recourse to words we don't know the meaning of. And I think it's a real concern. In a sense we've been here before as a species. Empires need information processing to function, so before computers humanity developed bureaucracies, which are a kind of human operated information processing machine. And eventually the administration of a large empire have always lost coherence, leading to the empire falling apart. The only difference is that a complex AI system could continue to run well after human society collapsed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Also, people losing proficiency in skills like flying an airplane, such that when the automatic pilot is confused and gives up, the human pilots are also confused and keep pushing up on the stick when the plane is in a dive. (aka flight 447) I'm sure we'll see similar situations when self-driving cars happen... suddenly something strange happens that the computer can't handle, and it says "Here, you drive!" to the human passenger who wasn't even paying attention to the road... because the car is supposed to drive itself, right?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
It has happened before that the smartest people in the world warn that technological advances may present major new weapons and threats. Last time it was Einstein and Szilard in 1939 warning that nuclear weapons might be possible. The letter to Roosevelt was three years before anyone had even built a nuclear reactor and 6 years before the first nuclear explosion. Nuclear bombs could easily have been labelled a "problem that probably does not exist." And if someone could destroy the planet, what could you do about it anyway? The US took the warning seriously and ensured that the free world and not a totalitarian dictator was the first capable of obliterating its opponents.
This time Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking are warning that superintelligence may make human intelligence obsolete. And they are dismissed because we haven't yet made human level intelligence and because if we did we couldn't do anything about it. If it is Musk, Gates, and Hawking vs Edward Geist, the smart money has to be with the geniuses. But if you look at the arguments, you see you don't even have to rely on their reputation. The argument is hands down won by the observation that human level artificial intelligence is an existential risk. Even if it is only 1% likely to happen in the next 500 years, we need to have a plan for how to deal with it. The root of the problem is that the capabilities of AI are expanding much faster than human capabilities can expand, so it is quite possible that we will lose our place as the dominant intellect on the planet. And that changes everything.
It's not a deflection, Geist says the same damn thing in the article! I know this because I could be bothered to SKIM read it!
Programming absolute rules into an advanced intelligence means putting a break into a specific logic circuit. It's roughly equivelent to programming a router to route spam to dev/nul. unfortunately networks interpret censorship as damage, and route around it.
I'd be really happy with a drywall bot right now.
In your civil unrest scenario, what happens when said generic bots are affordable on the scale that a cell phone that even the poorest own them?
As a famous person once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I'll be worried when a programmer writes a program that can write a program that can modify itself, then re-compile and test itself to see if the modifications were done properly, then posts itself to github.
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
"The extraordinary claim that machines can become so intelligent as to gain demonic powers requires extraordinary evidence"
You lose points for using "demonic", but the issue in my mind is not the machine, it's what humans will use it for.
Imagine a AI hooked to CCTV, the internet, the cell network, imagine everything you do being intelligently analyzed, you think the NSA is bad? Imagine something super intelligent that never sleeps watching you
That's just the tip of the iceberg, think how many humans could be replaced by a true AI, doctors, lawyers, politicians, all those and more could be replaced.
A super intelligent machine bolted to a floor in some climate controlled lab isn't much of a threat its self, but what it could do in the the points mentioned above, it is absolutely a threat to mankind.
In any case the ideal place for an AI is in space not on Earth, limitless energy and raw materials and zero concern for length of a planets life span.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Ignore these false claims. There is no truth to them.
End of line.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Indeed, the biggest danger is from the gradual shift to an automated economy. It is likely that unemployment will rise and there will be a sort of depression for the large portion of the country that had replaceable jobs, and competition will become that much more fierce. I would suppose, then, that our politics and culture will begin to shift towards socialism and communism. Maybe someday we'll have the Star Trek quality of life, but things need to get bad before the populace is compelled to make meaningful cultural change.
Ex-machina (so so movie) and all that are not what we have to worry about. Neither is the Terminator. What we have to worry about is crap like tiny drones made of synthetic biological parts which have been programmed to autonomously seek and destroy things based on their target's DNA.
Sure, its a robot but that's not a very rich description of the problem, is it? The level of AI portrayed in movies is a still a hundred years away or more. Long before we have Terminator or Matrix or ex-Machina type AI, we will have something like what I described.
The fact is non-human single purpose "intelligence" in an autonomous "creature" of some kind will happen first, and be more than deadly enough to destroy us. That's what we need to worry about that's what we need to start thinking about.
"The extraordinary claim that machines can become so intelligent as to gain demonic powers requires extraordinary evidence, particularly since artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have struggled to create machines that show much evidence of intelligence at all."
Um... intelligent machines already exist. I am one. So are you. The human brain is an existence proof that intelligent machines are possible. In this day and age, no respectable intellectual should need reminding of that fact.
Intelligent machines with demonic powers? Let's see... Kublai Khan, the emperor Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Mao...
Superintelligent machines? Exhibit 1 is John von Neumann. :-)
According to the article the definition of "superintelligence" of Oxford U's Nick Bostrom is "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest."
Should we, the human race not hope to have some sort of "superintelligence" some day, or do we want to stay just as we are eon after eon.? If we do want "superintelligence" some day, are we supposed to wait until we evolve, (and then would we be afraid of homo superior like in so much pulp science-fiction?) or should we go ahead and try to achieve it through AI?
I say go ahead and try to achieve the superintelligence thing through AI. There's been a lot of research on human behavior, to find out why we do irrational things that may cause long term harm. That needs to taken into account if developing conscious AI to be sure. There's a lot that needs figuring out about human nature (denial, spitefulness, prejudice...), but of course, there's a lot that needs to be figured out about AI too, so maybe the understanding of both will develop more or less in step. I'm aware that that sounds incredibly optimistic, but what's the alternative?
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
The good professor's arguments are asinine and deadly wrong. Retranslated, "I see no reason why you should be concerned about the dangers of a so called "atomic explosion". With the tiny amount of U-235 you have managed to isolate, you have barely managed to demonstrate more than the slightest bit of warmth resulting from radioactive decay. I see no reason to believe your extraordinary claims that it will detonate in a flash with the energy equivalent to thousands of tons of explosives"
The evidence that superintelligent AI is better than our evidence for nuclear fission in the 1940s. We know we are intelligent. We know you can build an intelligent machine with 86 billion neurons * 1000 interconnects. We know that our current neural hardware is thousands of time slower than the clock rates of trivially constructible digital circuits.
Today, our current efforts are tiny. Most advanced artificial neural network models only use 1000 or so connections, not the trillions we know it actually takes. We don't have the patterning for arranging those trillions of connections properly. Similarly, if you isolated a gram of U-235 by itself, it would seem harmless.
The theories in the 1940s knew it wasn't harmless, that putting enough of it in one place would lead to a chain reaction that would create nuclear driven heat. They eventually built, at great expense, the first reactors to test this.
Similarly, we know that the rate we think limits how fast we can invent and prepare new technology. We know that technology vastly better than what we have now is possible - machines that are constructed with careful thought atom by atom, that can self replicate and rearrange matter at an atomic level...
The professor's wrong, and is the same blithe ignorance as stating that it's totally ok with slam together those pieces of purified U-235 with no safety measures.
The idea that "researchers have struggled to create machines that show much evidence of intelligence at all" indicates anything at all is incredibly backward, linear thinking.
If it is capable of self-improvement, the gap between an AI that shows some signs of intelligence, and one that shows an unimaginable level of intelligence is over in the blink of an eye.
You'd better not enrol in "Drywalling 101" next semester.
Out of all of the weapon-specific hysteria (and there has been a lot of it--white phosphorus, thermobaric bombs, depleted uranium, etc.), the anti-landmine one might be the most dangerous.
Obviously, they do have a good point, what with the disasters in Indochina and elsewhere. However, those were cases of non-self destructing anti-personnel landmines placed in third world nations. The situation is / would be quite a bit different with anti-tank mines, self-deactivating or remote-deactivating mines, and/or mines placed in developed nations that have the resources to keep people out and clear the minefields later on as needed.
Why is this all worth mentioning? One word: Ukraine. In a situation where one side in a conflict desperately wants to fortify their defenses but doesn't want to risk alarming the other side (or giving them a plausible pretext to feign alarm), landmines are one of the few stationary weapons available that can thwart or at least seriously slow down an invasion. Instead of all this deeply worrying Cold War-type bravado of military exercises and NATO rapid response plans in Eastern Europe, just mine the fuck out of their borders. Putin could act huffy and offended if he wants, but people will realize it is a clearly not an aggressive action.
the challenge will be coming up with a legal framework so that the fruits of all that free labor get distributed widely, and not just to the few people who own the robot workforce.
Why? The people who had the foresight, work ethic, and brains to create or own the robot workforce have NO legal, ethical, or moral reason to "share" the fruits of their labors (or laborers) with others - stop the liberal bullshit that "everyone must share equally". If you want a piece of the pie, work your ass off and buy a piece, or go and make a pie of your own. But do not continue to expect to get a free ride off of the work of others.
Captcha: wallets (I'm not opening mine for you)
People seem to be obsessed with the idea that machines will gain AGI, but they overlook the obvious shortest path to superintendence, some super rich and or powerful person of questionable humanity uses technology to enhance themselves to the point where they are more technology than nature. Surely some sort of amoral or psychopathic ubermensch is the greatest threat to humanity and it will be effectively indistinguishable from a pure AGI anyway?
On other hand, said robot will cost > $100'000, the person able to maintain it will cost something like $300'000 per year and it will require expensive infrastructure that works. It will certainly "call in sick" and it will certainly not work 24/7. You have a romanticized idea of the reliability of machines.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's nice to be ideological about this, until you have massive unemployment and serious social unrest. If we get to a point where the machines significantly reduce the need for human workers, then we're going to have to rethink some things. After all, the robot owners need a large enough consumer base to keep turning a profit.
If that would be true 90% less people would die in traffic accidents. No matter if computers are not perfect they are still magnitudes of better than humans. Do you think humans are good in unexpected events? IIRC 10% of people just freeze. Another 10% do wrong reaction.
I'd love to get an AI over to my place to pick Poison Ivy.
I have met the demon and the demon has broken my soul. All one need do is use a decent PC and one of the better chess programs such as Crafty or Rebel. After the first 1000 games or so your ego will be so far down the toilet that you can't get it back again.
AI in some areas is such an intensive intelligence that it can turn a man into mulch for his garden.
well I have to say im suprised by his short-sightedness. Ask your RV department Stanford.
From his bio at http://fsi.stanford.edu/people...:
Edward Geist received his Ph.D. in history....His research interests include emergency management in nuclear disasters, Soviet politics and culture, and the history of nuclear power and weapons.
Once again, Slashdot editors fail to do basic vetting of sources. The only qualification for something to be posted here appears to be whether it will work as click-bait. You also have to love how the summary refers to him as "Stanford's Edward Moore Geist". You hear dear readers? He's from Stanford! That means academic authority! So, is he in Stanford's computer science department? Or engineering perhaps?
The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Oh, wait...
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Why? The people who had the foresight, work ethic, and brains to create or own the robot workforce have NO legal, ethical, or moral reason to "share" the fruits of their labors (or laborers) with others
Because in a world where 99% of the people are literally unemployable (because anything they can do, a robot can do better and cheaper), the alternatives are grim -- either mass starvation, or civil war.
If you want a piece of the pie, work your ass off and buy a piece, or go and make a pie of your own.
Yes, I'm familiar with the standard conservative moralizing. But that approach only works in a world where those actions are possible, and in the scenario we are discussing, they won't be.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Why is the ethics for an autonomous killing machine different from a non autonomous one?
Ha! No wonder you posted this drivel as AC; obviously autonomous weapons (capable of operating themselves!) are to be approached just a bit more cautiously than we do killing machines (knives, guns, tanks) that aren't.
Figure out a way to raise humans so that they don't turn out bad.
I see you're real proficient at suggesting realistic solutions to problems... ;)
http://www.newser.com/story/21... http://www.newser.com/story/20... http://www.newser.com/story/21...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Want to make sure autonomous killing machines are bug-free and have no danger of killing innocents?
There's a very simple solution. Require that fully armed autonomous killing machines patrol 24/7 inside the work facilities of those doing the programming and building the machines once the programmers and builders have stated the machines are safe to use. Problem solved in one of three ways: truly bug-free machines are released, no machines are ever released out of fear, or the programmers and builders are all killed ending the program just as it gets started.
This is certainly an entertaining worldview. I wonder the age of the child who envisions it.
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!
(You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more... YOU have NO intelligence, skills, + you running away from a fair challenge above's indicative of you trolling due to your 10 below plantlife IQ... lol! )
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!
(You're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more & the only "godlike powers" a TROLLING DOLT like you has is the ability to make me LAUGH TO NO END @ YOU...)
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!)
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!).
Per my subject, it's impossible for you to live up to my fair challenge vs. your bs trolling before it - why?
YOU DON'T HAVE THE SKILLS IN PROGRAMMING TO LIVE UP TO IT - fact, which you yourself evidence, lol!
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!).
Per my subject, it's impossible for you to live up to my fair challenge vs. your bs trolling before it - why?
YOU DON'T HAVE THE SKILLS IN PROGRAMMING TO LIVE UP TO THAT COMPLETELY FAIR CHALLENGE OF MINE TO YOU ABOVE - fact, which you yourself evidence, lol!
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* See my subject above? Thanks for proving it via evasion... you're merely a dime-a-dozen MENIAL techie & I've got your number down, weak little troll that you are (totally limited in his skills in computing, obviously, to the "Lowest of the LOW" - mere techie!).
Per my subject, it's impossible for you to live up to my fair challenge vs. your bs trolling before it - why?
YOU DON'T HAVE THE SKILLS IN PROGRAMMING TO LIVE UP TO IT - fact, which you yourself evidence, lol!
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk