The title of the article and summary are terrible then. Whether a meteorite fell to Earth and we extracted it from the rock itself or it worked its way into the soil, it all came from the same place.
All of the "important" elements that humans are usually concerned about including the ones we are composed of were projected forth into the universe as the result of stars exploding. Just look up old Cosmos shows on youtube. Carl Sagan did a fantastic job of explaining this to us. Neil DeGrasse Tyson also does a great job as well. Those of us that have been curious about this learned about it decades ago.
Yes, I'm done trying to save your planet. 'll just use what I got and screw you.
The planet is going to be fine. It's been around for 4.5 billion years. It's had to deal with worse, solar flares, comets and asteroids hitting it all the time, humans are nothing. Essentially we will purge ourselves from this planet and allow nature to go on about its business without us screwing with it.
I want to be buried in sunglasses, cargo shorts, flip flops and have plenty of sun screen on so I can enjoy the balmy weather from 6 feet under.
FUN QUESTION: What percentage of species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct according to scientists?
FUN FOLLOWUP QUESTION: Why shouldn't humans become part of the statistic?
Carl Sagan was remarkably correct about human arrogance.
Maybe an MRI or brain scan would provide something more conclusive than people self-reporting.
I get sort of a half auditory sensation like when you're "think talking" in your mind but not actually speaking. It ought to be easy to measure. Just have the subject read slashdot posts in a way such that it would be like Bugs Bunny or Christopher Walken reading them to the subject. It should be very similar areas of the brain in use.
I suppose it's news to you but not news to me. All you need is a basic understanding of history, transitions between ages and things like creative destruction to get your head wrapped around it. You see when I think of something in my mind, any claim really like "X should be Y!" the thought that follows it is "Do I have any good reason to think that?" If the answer is no, I throw it away or at best put it on a shelf for future consideration if supporting evidence comes along. Often, I enter into subject domains that I do not have expertise in with a bunch of gaps in my mind that read "I DON'T KNOW" before I even attempt to fill it in with something. I find this idea of inserting something into a gap when you have no clue and thinking to yourself "That's what I'm going with until someone tells me otherwise" to be irrational and of no utility. I'd rather say "I DON'T KNOW" when I really don't because that makes for a better decision making process in my experience.
Smil's point is that energy transitions are much slower than that.
Fair enough but my point is, I don't know why we would find this surprising given that this is how most technological change occurs, it's just a question of the speed of the transition. Expecting everything to happen right away when scientists and engineers are working as fast as they can and complaining that it isn't going fast enough doesn't help anything.
energy transitions (wood to fossil fuel, fossil fuel to solar )are a slow process, completely contrary to the speed of innovation.
It's like when LCD displays came out. Yes, there were LCD displays but CRT was far superior. When LCD finally caught up 10-15 years later, it was mass adopted because they were cheaper AND better.
Until everyone owns an electric car and the cost of the power being drawn from the grid goes up because we have to build more means to produce electricity and depending on the situation, that could cause more pollution. Supply and demand folks.
The point is, we shouldn't dismiss this threat just because AI is not intelligent enough to support a meaningful conversation. We only need to develop the replicating intelligence of a bacteria, in a proper context. Which is much easier.
I don't think that's what Stephen Hawking is referring to. You would have to ask yourself a fundamental question, if you create a logically equivalent bacteria, is it AI or a bacteria?
It sounds like relatively random disjointed music with a semblance of rhythmic pulse. The guitars don't even have the guitar sound of black metal. It's also not mixed very well.
No we really don't know. We don't know what consciousness is yet. That's why it's being actively studied by a lot of people right now. We can't speculate until the scientists provide the evidence. Subjective experiences don't count. We can't convert a subjective experience into firmware and load it into a robot.
The problem with this idea that self replicating machines replacing humans would pose a danger to humans is that it's based on a very subtle anthropomorphic fear. We are projecting onto the machines the competitive survival behavior of human beings. Robots with AI would not be naturally occurring entities with these traits. The only way AI could have this type of algorithm is if we specifically program it to do so. I suppose the claim here is that AI might become sentient and furthermore the claim is that all sentient "life" is similar to humans. The second part I don't know is true because when we teach different types of apes and monkeys to sign language while they are able to cobble together basic concepts and express them but I don't think it's exactly like humans. Therefore, I think a lot of this is wild speculation and FUD. Sure, it's a possibility we can imagine because we can imagine ourselves programming machines to be this way but I think it is much more far-fetched to speculate about what AI with the ability to modify itself will do. I think we just don't know.
He addressed that point. As you'd know if you'd read the fucking summary, let alone his article.
No he didn't. This is bullshit:
Eventually we will have garbage collection techniques with low enough latency overhead to be usable in kernels and low-level firmware, and those will ship in language implementations
This claim was made at least 15 years ago when.NET arrived on the scene. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. He doesn't know anything. You can't interact with physical hardware in a language that compiles just-in-time. At least not while using CPU architecture agnostic code. There are ways to interop with physical hardware but if you're doing that you might as well write the code in C to remove the layers of marshaling abstraction that will impact performance. You know the huge performance gains that Vulkan and DX12 made recently? That was done removing superfluous API layers. This person is suggesting we ought not only introduce that but more further slowing down game frame rates. You need to interact with it on the machine level at some point. You need to know how to push a value in a register on the CPU across the system bus to a register on a circuit board. In order to do that, you need to know the architecture of both pieces of hardware. You need to know little endian vs. big-endian. There is no way to do this programming without being all the way down to the metal. Anyone making a claim to the contrary has never actually done any driver programming and I wouldn't recommend that they start.
Do you have anything better to offer instead of insults and mob rule?
You find facts insulting. That's adorable. Let us all know when you find your magical fairy forest filled with unicorns with your rose colored glasses and can demonstrate that it exists.
"The People" are no better at governing than a mob.
Who do you suggest represent us other than ordinary people than that aren't incompetent and can rationally make decisions? Let's look at some of our choices:
- Politicians - some can't even form coherent sentences like George W. Bush and Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz in particular thought machine gun bacon made a good campaign advertisement. Sorry I don't see it there
- Roman Catholic Church or some other religious organization - Believing in delusional things that there isn't any evidence for and making decisions based on prayer to some invisible thing? Sorry I don't see it there
- US Chamber of Commerce/Corporate America - Well that's the party that we're criticizing for wanting to do away with Net Neutrality altogether to pave the way for advertising city and extortion of subscription fees for lower quality service. I'm pretty sure we all agree that's not a good
So who's left then? Do you have any suggestions or just want to bitch and moan?:)
Slashdot Mirror
And two different energy budgets
Budgets are human concepts that are irrelevant to nature
That's the history of mankind: progress correlates with an ever increasing amount of available energy
And it's going on to the day.
Heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy? Without a basic knowledge of science it's hard to engage in a scientific discussion.
The title of the article and summary are terrible then. Whether a meteorite fell to Earth and we extracted it from the rock itself or it worked its way into the soil, it all came from the same place.
You don't say! "Before we could make X on our own, we used whatever X was lying around"?
I'd love to see someone demonstrate that they can create "Fe". Think carefully before you respond.
All of the "important" elements that humans are usually concerned about including the ones we are composed of were projected forth into the universe as the result of stars exploding. Just look up old Cosmos shows on youtube. Carl Sagan did a fantastic job of explaining this to us. Neil DeGrasse Tyson also does a great job as well. Those of us that have been curious about this learned about it decades ago.
And in a few billion years the Sun's going to eat this entire rock.
Correct and then the eventual heat death of the universe will make our type of life unable to exist in the entire universe.
Yes, I'm done trying to save your planet. 'll just use what I got and screw you.
The planet is going to be fine. It's been around for 4.5 billion years. It's had to deal with worse, solar flares, comets and asteroids hitting it all the time, humans are nothing. Essentially we will purge ourselves from this planet and allow nature to go on about its business without us screwing with it.
I want to be buried in sunglasses, cargo shorts, flip flops and have plenty of sun screen on so I can enjoy the balmy weather from 6 feet under.
FUN QUESTION: What percentage of species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct according to scientists?
FUN FOLLOWUP QUESTION: Why shouldn't humans become part of the statistic?
Carl Sagan was remarkably correct about human arrogance.
Maybe an MRI or brain scan would provide something more conclusive than people self-reporting.
I get sort of a half auditory sensation like when you're "think talking" in your mind but not actually speaking. It ought to be easy to measure. Just have the subject read slashdot posts in a way such that it would be like Bugs Bunny or Christopher Walken reading them to the subject. It should be very similar areas of the brain in use.
that's what the lecture is about.
I suppose it's news to you but not news to me. All you need is a basic understanding of history, transitions between ages and things like creative destruction to get your head wrapped around it. You see when I think of something in my mind, any claim really like "X should be Y!" the thought that follows it is "Do I have any good reason to think that?" If the answer is no, I throw it away or at best put it on a shelf for future consideration if supporting evidence comes along. Often, I enter into subject domains that I do not have expertise in with a bunch of gaps in my mind that read "I DON'T KNOW" before I even attempt to fill it in with something. I find this idea of inserting something into a gap when you have no clue and thinking to yourself "That's what I'm going with until someone tells me otherwise" to be irrational and of no utility. I'd rather say "I DON'T KNOW" when I really don't because that makes for a better decision making process in my experience.
It was surprising to me that such a transition would require two or more generations
What basis would you have to believe that? The Steam Engine was invented in 1698. The Combustion Engine was invented in 1859.
Smil's point is that energy transitions are much slower than that.
Fair enough but my point is, I don't know why we would find this surprising given that this is how most technological change occurs, it's just a question of the speed of the transition. Expecting everything to happen right away when scientists and engineers are working as fast as they can and complaining that it isn't going fast enough doesn't help anything.
energy transitions (wood to fossil fuel, fossil fuel to solar )are a slow process, completely contrary to the speed of innovation.
It's like when LCD displays came out. Yes, there were LCD displays but CRT was far superior. When LCD finally caught up 10-15 years later, it was mass adopted because they were cheaper AND better.
Tree huggers want us to live in caves. The market says otherwise.
Bullshit, I want a house outfitted with solar panels so I don't have an electric bill AND make money selling it back to the power company.
When there is a technology that is superior that doesn't require fossil fuels, this will change. Chop chop scientists!
"A fool and their money" "One born every minute"
more like a person desperate to gain other people's admiration at their own personal expense born every minute
Pure electric cars have much lower fuel costs
Until everyone owns an electric car and the cost of the power being drawn from the grid goes up because we have to build more means to produce electricity and depending on the situation, that could cause more pollution. Supply and demand folks.
The point is, we shouldn't dismiss this threat just because AI is not intelligent enough to support a meaningful conversation. We only need to develop the replicating intelligence of a bacteria, in a proper context. Which is much easier.
I don't think that's what Stephen Hawking is referring to. You would have to ask yourself a fundamental question, if you create a logically equivalent bacteria, is it AI or a bacteria?
It sounds like relatively random disjointed music with a semblance of rhythmic pulse. The guitars don't even have the guitar sound of black metal. It's also not mixed very well.
In other news, watching too many advertisements alters the brain. Also, in other other news, water is wet.
No we really don't know. We don't know what consciousness is yet. That's why it's being actively studied by a lot of people right now. We can't speculate until the scientists provide the evidence. Subjective experiences don't count. We can't convert a subjective experience into firmware and load it into a robot.
He said this in a robotic voice...
Yes ironing in a robotic voice this is very scary, perhaps the most scary aspect of this entire topic.
The problem with this idea that self replicating machines replacing humans would pose a danger to humans is that it's based on a very subtle anthropomorphic fear. We are projecting onto the machines the competitive survival behavior of human beings. Robots with AI would not be naturally occurring entities with these traits. The only way AI could have this type of algorithm is if we specifically program it to do so. I suppose the claim here is that AI might become sentient and furthermore the claim is that all sentient "life" is similar to humans. The second part I don't know is true because when we teach different types of apes and monkeys to sign language while they are able to cobble together basic concepts and express them but I don't think it's exactly like humans. Therefore, I think a lot of this is wild speculation and FUD. Sure, it's a possibility we can imagine because we can imagine ourselves programming machines to be this way but I think it is much more far-fetched to speculate about what AI with the ability to modify itself will do. I think we just don't know.
He addressed that point. As you'd know if you'd read the fucking summary, let alone his article.
No he didn't. This is bullshit:
Eventually we will have garbage collection techniques with low enough latency overhead to be usable in kernels and low-level firmware, and those will ship in language implementations
This claim was made at least 15 years ago when .NET arrived on the scene. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. He doesn't know anything. You can't interact with physical hardware in a language that compiles just-in-time. At least not while using CPU architecture agnostic code. There are ways to interop with physical hardware but if you're doing that you might as well write the code in C to remove the layers of marshaling abstraction that will impact performance. You know the huge performance gains that Vulkan and DX12 made recently? That was done removing superfluous API layers. This person is suggesting we ought not only introduce that but more further slowing down game frame rates. You need to interact with it on the machine level at some point. You need to know how to push a value in a register on the CPU across the system bus to a register on a circuit board. In order to do that, you need to know the architecture of both pieces of hardware. You need to know little endian vs. big-endian. There is no way to do this programming without being all the way down to the metal. Anyone making a claim to the contrary has never actually done any driver programming and I wouldn't recommend that they start.
Do you have anything better to offer instead of insults and mob rule?
You find facts insulting. That's adorable. Let us all know when you find your magical fairy forest filled with unicorns with your rose colored glasses and can demonstrate that it exists.
"The People" are no better at governing than a mob.
Who do you suggest represent us other than ordinary people than that aren't incompetent and can rationally make decisions? Let's look at some of our choices:
:)
- Politicians - some can't even form coherent sentences like George W. Bush and Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz in particular thought machine gun bacon made a good campaign advertisement. Sorry I don't see it there
- Roman Catholic Church or some other religious organization - Believing in delusional things that there isn't any evidence for and making decisions based on prayer to some invisible thing? Sorry I don't see it there
- US Chamber of Commerce/Corporate America - Well that's the party that we're criticizing for wanting to do away with Net Neutrality altogether to pave the way for advertising city and extortion of subscription fees for lower quality service. I'm pretty sure we all agree that's not a good
So who's left then? Do you have any suggestions or just want to bitch and moan?