It may have been initially too hot for H2 to form. The underlying report indicates that HeH+ was the first molecule and that molecular hydrogen (H2) followed.
Going down the road isn't really a choice, it's simply the road that we find ourselves on. We are probably better off learning as we go, even if mistakes are made. Any mistake we make now will be small in comparison to what we'd cause down the road without the benefit of hindsight.
I'm not sure this is a great example, but nuclear weapons come to mind. We discovered the capability, for better or worse. That is the road we were on. They should have never been used, but we didn't *really* know that until after they had been. If they hadn't been used in WWII, I think there's a decent chance that the planet would be a cinder right now (probably by the late '60s).
If we screw this up big time, we are probably averting a larger disaster in the future. On the other hand, if it works, we're eliminating a whole lot of human suffering.
What about a sentience set of rights that applies to all sentience, whether machine or organic?
Absolutely. Even beyond machine or organic (organic is just a molecular machine after all). If sentience arises from a complex network, then it could exist in things we haven't imagined. Could there be sentience in some astronomical feature, or in a mess of virtual particles? Could it's network exist orthogonal to our existence (e.g. swapping a space dimension for time). I'm way oversimplifying and out of my league with the math, but it's interesting to think about.
I do think we'd need to achieve a comfort level for a continuum of sentience. While I expect a sociological split between the people that believe in divine sentience (only natural born humans are sentient) vs. spontaneous sentience, I don't think many people will entertain the idea of housefly sentience. Nonetheless, you shouldn't pick the legs off of a fly. We should be asking if it is right to produce AI at a commercial scale when the purpose is for it to do our bidding.
What if we peer into the future and take care of AI the right way, before it becomes a problem that weighs greatly on society and humanity?
It is easy to envision that AI will come to the point that it will be indistinguishable from human intelligence. Likely without what we would call emotional intelligence, and probably without a survival instinct, but arguably sentient.
Sentience will be a sticking point. Some will believe that sentience can only be endowed by a divine being, yet others will believe that sentience arises spontaneously, perhaps on a continuum that rides along with complexity. My point here is that there will be more than enough people that believe some future AI is a sentient being and we will be having a discussion about its inherent rights. By the time this discussion occurs, potentially sentient AI will be everywhere. The discussion will turn to the possibility that we have enslaved these beings and we will be facing a rather stark, yet familiar reality.
I would suggest that we get ahead of this and ensure that AI systems have some level of civil rights, proportionate to a presumed level of sentience - perhaps starting with protections similar to what we have for animals and moving on from there as AI progresses toward human levels of existence. The primary effect of this would be to force companies that use AI to think about the future ramifications and would probably chill progress in AI to some degree. I think that we need to step back and really think about what we're making.
Help me out here. The article that you link to states that "Two suspects were killed and a security guard was shot...". The NBC tweet states that "2ppl shot".
Where does it say that terrorists killed everyone?
Thank you for the great writeup. Was item #3 (my root server) supposed to be "remote"? The SSH tunnel seemed to indicate that it is a remote server, but then I couldn't understand using rsync on top of iscsi exported across a WAN.
Also, I curious what software you use for creating and maintaining the hash DB. Is it just scripts, or a software package?
Police can lawfully, with a warrant, subpoena this information from your provider, no Stingray required.
I am not sure that the process you describe would really work in an emergency. In the major metropolitan area that I live, it would take many days for the emergency services officials to get that info from the telco. I've been privvy to one request and the amount of paperwork and process that the telco requires is substantial. They don't make a distinction between a stolen car or a person bleeding to death somewhere. The request process is the same. Naturally, there are certain government agencies that have much faster access, but they won't be helping you if your car veered off an isolated road or you were robbed and stabbed.
I'm not in favor of Stingrays - just pointing out that while the telco records may be helpful for figuring out what happened, they won't come in time to save your life.
Slashdot Mirror
It may have been initially too hot for H2 to form. The underlying report indicates that HeH+ was the first molecule and that molecular hydrogen (H2) followed.
If you buy food that comes from a farm, you will be paying for it. Doubly-indirectly, but you'll be paying.
Going down the road isn't really a choice, it's simply the road that we find ourselves on. We are probably better off learning as we go, even if mistakes are made. Any mistake we make now will be small in comparison to what we'd cause down the road without the benefit of hindsight.
I'm not sure this is a great example, but nuclear weapons come to mind. We discovered the capability, for better or worse. That is the road we were on. They should have never been used, but we didn't *really* know that until after they had been. If they hadn't been used in WWII, I think there's a decent chance that the planet would be a cinder right now (probably by the late '60s).
If we screw this up big time, we are probably averting a larger disaster in the future. On the other hand, if it works, we're eliminating a whole lot of human suffering.
As a thought experiment, what will it look like when this happens to a network of connected self driving cars?
I say "when", not "if". I can't think of a way that this doesn't happen someday.
For starters, emergency vehicles will not be able to get through the resulting traffic jams after a few million cars come to a stop.
On the bright side, you'll probably still be able to read the ads on the entertainment system
Excellent post and well said. I can barely begin to imagine how this will all turn out.
What about a sentience set of rights that applies to all sentience, whether machine or organic?
Absolutely. Even beyond machine or organic (organic is just a molecular machine after all). If sentience arises from a complex network, then it could exist in things we haven't imagined. Could there be sentience in some astronomical feature, or in a mess of virtual particles? Could it's network exist orthogonal to our existence (e.g. swapping a space dimension for time). I'm way oversimplifying and out of my league with the math, but it's interesting to think about.
I do think we'd need to achieve a comfort level for a continuum of sentience. While I expect a sociological split between the people that believe in divine sentience (only natural born humans are sentient) vs. spontaneous sentience, I don't think many people will entertain the idea of housefly sentience. Nonetheless, you shouldn't pick the legs off of a fly. We should be asking if it is right to produce AI at a commercial scale when the purpose is for it to do our bidding.
What if we peer into the future and take care of AI the right way, before it becomes a problem that weighs greatly on society and humanity?
It is easy to envision that AI will come to the point that it will be indistinguishable from human intelligence. Likely without what we would call emotional intelligence, and probably without a survival instinct, but arguably sentient.
Sentience will be a sticking point. Some will believe that sentience can only be endowed by a divine being, yet others will believe that sentience arises spontaneously, perhaps on a continuum that rides along with complexity. My point here is that there will be more than enough people that believe some future AI is a sentient being and we will be having a discussion about its inherent rights. By the time this discussion occurs, potentially sentient AI will be everywhere. The discussion will turn to the possibility that we have enslaved these beings and we will be facing a rather stark, yet familiar reality.
I would suggest that we get ahead of this and ensure that AI systems have some level of civil rights, proportionate to a presumed level of sentience - perhaps starting with protections similar to what we have for animals and moving on from there as AI progresses toward human levels of existence. The primary effect of this would be to force companies that use AI to think about the future ramifications and would probably chill progress in AI to some degree. I think that we need to step back and really think about what we're making.
Help me out here. The article that you link to states that "Two suspects were killed and a security guard was shot...". The NBC tweet states that "2ppl shot".
Where does it say that terrorists killed everyone?
Thank you for the great writeup. Was item #3 (my root server) supposed to be "remote"? The SSH tunnel seemed to indicate that it is a remote server, but then I couldn't understand using rsync on top of iscsi exported across a WAN.
Also, I curious what software you use for creating and maintaining the hash DB. Is it just scripts, or a software package?
But isn't this like an 1850's plantation owner saying that they have "expertise" in employee benefits and labor management?
"Differing opinions" my ass...
Police can lawfully, with a warrant, subpoena this information from your provider, no Stingray required.
I am not sure that the process you describe would really work in an emergency. In the major metropolitan area that I live, it would take many days for the emergency services officials to get that info from the telco. I've been privvy to one request and the amount of paperwork and process that the telco requires is substantial. They don't make a distinction between a stolen car or a person bleeding to death somewhere. The request process is the same. Naturally, there are certain government agencies that have much faster access, but they won't be helping you if your car veered off an isolated road or you were robbed and stabbed.
I'm not in favor of Stingrays - just pointing out that while the telco records may be helpful for figuring out what happened, they won't come in time to save your life.
An explanation of why my socks go missing and where they went.
There - fixed it for you.