I tried to use time limiting apps for my kids cell phones. The phones got hacked. Now I require the phone and computer keyboard every night at 10, and give them back next day. Just so they have time to wash and sleep. I think the cell phone is like a drug and an unlimited cell phone in the hand of a child could be a disaster.
The answer lays in self-replication. Conscious entities have to come about in some way or another - and the way nature chose is self replication. But replication is complex and subject to various constraints and needs. In order to accomplish those, we need many other skills, such as ability to find food, shelter and to socialise. All we do is in the service of self replication, ultimately. We're the result of this competition for resources, that pits agents against other agents in the same environment.
> I find the beauty and elegance of universal laws and natural selection to be far more marvellous than a mundane bearded guy in the sky.
Exactly this. Most people have not studied the intricacies of reinforcement learning or evolutionary algorithms, thus, think it's some kind of magic soul stuff, or at least quantum stuff, or please, at least let it be panpsychism! Just because they can't see how interesting, complex and powerful are the RL and EA frameworks they need to postulate a magical explanation.
> How many monkeys banging on things with sticks does it take to make music?
How many humans dropping from trees does it take to make a decent jump? How many PhD students does it take to equal the speed of computation of a cell phone?
No really, it's stupid to make such long winded comparisons. We can already make music with neural networks, it's not so mysterious. We can generate language from computers. We can have AI play games like humans. AI can even balance on a wheel like a circus clown. Even if AI isn't at human level, it shows that much of what we do is just optimisation. Humans are optimised at being human. Monkeys are better at being monkeys, which requires a different skill set and has different rewards.
Comparing monkeys to humans on a human task is unfair.
There is no reason to look for consciousness at quantum level. Consciousness is related to agents acting in the environment, with a goal. It is a macro level process, not a low level one. To have consciousness means to observe the state of the environment and the internal body state, then select an action that maximises expected rewards, then observe if the action actually was beneficial - if it was, the agent should do more of that, if not, less. Repeat this for each and every moment. That's consciousness - predicting expected return (emotion) related to current state, useful in selecting beneficial actions. Not some kind of panpsychism hocus-pocus.
It's very unlikely the strategy of splitting the monopoly will work online. How would you split Google search, force half the planet to use a different search engine? People are the true source of Google fortune - so we should have a voice and a seat at the table. And the data they amassed should be put to use for the benefit of everyone (and increasing competition), not just for their profit.
> a thousand smaller companies step in to fill their shoes without the ability to be evil fuckers
They might be worse than Google. Google, with all its warts, is well guarded. A thousand companies will have a thousand more vulnerabilities and opportunities to get hacked.
They are not monitoring, they are just being notified of problems and asked to intervene to rescue the robot. That's one thing. We can be sure a human can solve these kinds of problems. But monitoring health devices is best left to machines, I don't trust human attention to detail.
> The AI researchers have their hands full with getting their programs to identify street signs, but now the code needs to have some common sense
Your naivety is endearing. Do you think you just discovered the problem of AI? Also, you're misinformed regarding street signs - AI is better than us at that task.
They are afraid more buses will make even more googlers rent or buy in their neighbourhood, raising prices for them. They don't want to compete with the successful young techies for homes.
It's doing a lot of things, but it isn't replacing traditional software, it is going in different directions, mostly image, text and voice processing, driving cars, driving data-center cooling, medical (reading scans, diagnosis), financial, spam, sentiment, content/product recommendation and web search ranking.
Cameras that work at 1/1,000,000 exposure time are a whole different beast. Maybe once the image is taken, it can be processed at that speed, but it's meaningless to claim it works that fast.
It's a smart name, on par with "Google" which was initially meant to be Gogol (10^100). Waymo is "the WAY towards MObility" or something. Very smart name, indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad I don't have mod points for you.
I tried to use time limiting apps for my kids cell phones. The phones got hacked. Now I require the phone and computer keyboard every night at 10, and give them back next day. Just so they have time to wash and sleep. I think the cell phone is like a drug and an unlimited cell phone in the hand of a child could be a disaster.
> We can try multiple solutions in different states, and get a better idea which ones work and which ones don't.
You're naive, the monopolist ISPs already know what they want to do, they don't need to test and find out. They want exactly what they lobbied to do.
Apparently it is the job of the government to stop people from deploying their own ISPs. /s
The answer lays in self-replication. Conscious entities have to come about in some way or another - and the way nature chose is self replication. But replication is complex and subject to various constraints and needs. In order to accomplish those, we need many other skills, such as ability to find food, shelter and to socialise. All we do is in the service of self replication, ultimately. We're the result of this competition for resources, that pits agents against other agents in the same environment.
> I find the beauty and elegance of universal laws and natural selection to be far more marvellous than a mundane bearded guy in the sky.
Exactly this. Most people have not studied the intricacies of reinforcement learning or evolutionary algorithms, thus, think it's some kind of magic soul stuff, or at least quantum stuff, or please, at least let it be panpsychism! Just because they can't see how interesting, complex and powerful are the RL and EA frameworks they need to postulate a magical explanation.
> How many monkeys banging on things with sticks does it take to make music?
How many humans dropping from trees does it take to make a decent jump? How many PhD students does it take to equal the speed of computation of a cell phone?
No really, it's stupid to make such long winded comparisons. We can already make music with neural networks, it's not so mysterious. We can generate language from computers. We can have AI play games like humans. AI can even balance on a wheel like a circus clown. Even if AI isn't at human level, it shows that much of what we do is just optimisation. Humans are optimised at being human. Monkeys are better at being monkeys, which requires a different skill set and has different rewards. Comparing monkeys to humans on a human task is unfair.
There is no reason to look for consciousness at quantum level. Consciousness is related to agents acting in the environment, with a goal. It is a macro level process, not a low level one. To have consciousness means to observe the state of the environment and the internal body state, then select an action that maximises expected rewards, then observe if the action actually was beneficial - if it was, the agent should do more of that, if not, less. Repeat this for each and every moment. That's consciousness - predicting expected return (emotion) related to current state, useful in selecting beneficial actions. Not some kind of panpsychism hocus-pocus.
Except they don't have a problem with Google, they have a problem with the employees, because it's the employees that raise the prices.
I wish I had mod points. You know how to tell a story.
It's very unlikely the strategy of splitting the monopoly will work online. How would you split Google search, force half the planet to use a different search engine? People are the true source of Google fortune - so we should have a voice and a seat at the table. And the data they amassed should be put to use for the benefit of everyone (and increasing competition), not just for their profit.
> a thousand smaller companies step in to fill their shoes without the ability to be evil fuckers
They might be worse than Google. Google, with all its warts, is well guarded. A thousand companies will have a thousand more vulnerabilities and opportunities to get hacked.
They are not monitoring, they are just being notified of problems and asked to intervene to rescue the robot. That's one thing. We can be sure a human can solve these kinds of problems. But monitoring health devices is best left to machines, I don't trust human attention to detail.
That doesn't matter, it's a political case, and US is a dangerous country with a vendetta.
> The AI researchers have their hands full with getting their programs to identify street signs, but now the code needs to have some common sense
Your naivety is endearing. Do you think you just discovered the problem of AI? Also, you're misinformed regarding street signs - AI is better than us at that task.
And if they catch you distracted, closing your eyes, covering your ears, or not buying in the next 24 hours, then you're banned.
They are afraid more buses will make even more googlers rent or buy in their neighbourhood, raising prices for them. They don't want to compete with the successful young techies for homes.
It's doing a lot of things, but it isn't replacing traditional software, it is going in different directions, mostly image, text and voice processing, driving cars, driving data-center cooling, medical (reading scans, diagnosis), financial, spam, sentiment, content/product recommendation and web search ranking.
That's brilliant!
I am sure Apple used computer vision to detect bullies doing that. /s
Cameras that work at 1/1,000,000 exposure time are a whole different beast. Maybe once the image is taken, it can be processed at that speed, but it's meaningless to claim it works that fast.
> Sad that Obama did nothing to help.
Donald, is that you?
Share an MP3? 150,000$ per infringement
Give 1.5 million phone calls to people on do-not-call list? 50K fine.
That sounds balanced.
That was a given since it has been possible to have billions of videos instead of hundreds of channels.
It's a smart name, on par with "Google" which was initially meant to be Gogol (10^100). Waymo is "the WAY towards MObility" or something. Very smart name, indeed.